The End of Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter FindTruth7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
By the way your profile says under religion “whatever is truth”. Then join us in the Catholic Church which has the fullness of truth.
Click to expand...
I don’t have a profile. I’m at my uncle’s visiting, using his computer. He’s a theistic evolutionist, i’m not. 🙂
 
rossum said:
I am almost tempted to call Poe on this one, however there are not quite enough exclamation marks and little use of capital letters so I am not completely sure. If it is a Poe then well done FindTruth7, it is a very good one. So assuming it isn’t a Poe I shall continue.

It continues every time bacteria evolve immunity to a new antibiotic, MRSA or drug resistant TB for example.

See what I mean about the Poe; a Poe would have been more like “It’s flat OUT wrong!!!” with the strange capitalisation and more exclamation marks. Very close to the boundary, but not quite over it.

When I go to the seashore I can see that the level of the sea is gradually decreasing because the tide is going out. Does that mean that last year the sea covered all of the land? No because I cannot just assume that the rate I see now was always the same in the past. The same with the earth’s magnetic field, you cannot make the uniformitarian assumption that the rate has always been the same in the past. We have evidence that the rate has changed in the past. For detailed coverage of this creationist PRATT see CD701. [PRATT = Point Refuted A Thousand Times]

Oh boy. Why do you expect to convince anyone with this one when AiG are not convinced by it? Have a look at AiG’s Arguments we think creationists should NOT use:‘Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon.’ For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one either).
See also CE101 for the detail on this PRATT.

Have you actually done the maths on this one? The moon is receeding at about 3.8 cm per year. Try doing the calculation, bearing in mind what I said above about uniformitarian assumptions. Again the PRATT is covered at CE110.

Scientists argue from evidence, not from quotes in books. However if you want a quote from Gould, how about:Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

Source: Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. “Evolution as Fact and Theory” in Hens Teeth and Horse’s Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
I also can quote books, do you know that the Bible says that there is no God? I bet you find that a really convincing argument.

Then please explain why every oak tree could get to the high ground better than an animal like Dimetrodon? All Dimetrodon fossils are below all oak tree fossils.

rossum
Click to expand...
What in the world is a Poe?:confused:
 
rossum said:
I am almost tempted to call Poe on this one, however there are not quite enough exclamation marks and little use of capital letters so I am not completely sure. If it is a Poe then well done FindTruth7, it is a very good one. So assuming it isn’t a Poe I shall continue.

It continues every time bacteria evolve immunity to a new antibiotic, MRSA or drug resistant TB for example.

See what I mean about the Poe; a Poe would have been more like “It’s flat OUT wrong!!!” with the strange capitalisation and more exclamation marks. Very close to the boundary, but not quite over it.

When I go to the seashore I can see that the level of the sea is gradually decreasing because the tide is going out. Does that mean that last year the sea covered all of the land? No because I cannot just assume that the rate I see now was always the same in the past. The same with the earth’s magnetic field, you cannot make the uniformitarian assumption that the rate has always been the same in the past. We have evidence that the rate has changed in the past. For detailed coverage of this creationist PRATT see CD701. [PRATT = Point Refuted A Thousand Times]

Oh boy. Why do you expect to convince anyone with this one when AiG are not convinced by it? Have a look at AiG’s Arguments we think creationists should NOT use:‘Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon.’ For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one either).
See also CE101 for the detail on this PRATT.

Have you actually done the maths on this one? The moon is receeding at about 3.8 cm per year. Try doing the calculation, bearing in mind what I said above about uniformitarian assumptions. Again the PRATT is covered at CE110.

Scientists argue from evidence, not from quotes in books. However if you want a quote from Gould, how about:Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

Source: Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. “Evolution as Fact and Theory” in Hens Teeth and Horse’s Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
I also can quote books, do you know that the Bible says that there is no God? I bet you find that a really convincing argument.

Then please explain why every oak tree could get to the high ground better than an animal like Dimetrodon? All Dimetrodon fossils are below all oak tree fossils.

rossum
Click to expand...
The bible does not say that there is no God, anywhere. Show me, and show me the translation, and where that translatin was translated from, and the credits of those that translated it. the Bible says that there is no God beside Jehova, and to have no other Gods beside Him.

As for the rest of your stuff (impressive, and quite interesting I admit) I will try and demolish it later my friend:p
 
The_Barbarian said:
All creationists know that oak trees can run faster than Dimetrodons.
Click to expand...
LOL I see your point here, but hey, you never know, perhaps there was a shift in the strata that upset the entire oak tree/dimetrodons fossils. 😃 Or just perhaps oak trees micro evolved only recently, and not 9-10 thousand years ago.👍
 
I cannot understand anyone who does not believe in evolution. To me this is the perfect theory. And a great man Charles Darwin worked it out and it has now been proved over and over again. 14 billion years ago the Universe came into existance. And no one knows why. Unless there was a God who thought that it is better to have some company in the real world than sitting all by himself in the moonlight talking to himself and If there was any moonlight then of course. Unless the other answer is that Nature does it all without any help from any spirit djohn
 
This is not directed at any one individual, so please do not take it to be so, unless of course, you feel you have been less than charitable so far.

I am going to preemptively issue a charity warning on this thread because I know that this topic generates much passionate discussion/debate. (I might also point out that there are already a great many threads on this topic that can be found by simply using the forum Search feature.)

It matters not whether you all agree or not, but your disagreements must be discussed with charity and respect.

Review this link if you have any questions, or if still in doubt you are free to contact me by PM for further clarification without prejudice.

Consolidated Stickies For the Apologetics Forum. READ THIS FIRST!

God’s blessings,
 
Expression must be one of the greatest gifts God gave us But we still have had to fight for the Freedom of Expression djohn
 
djohn said:
Expression must be one of the greatest gifts God gave us But we still have had to fight for the Freedom of Expression djohn
Click to expand...
When a poster pays for this website, then a poster may have complete freedom of expression. Until then, we are to be nice and post by the rules. Not pointing out anyone in particular—I just don’t think the “freedom of expression” argument flies very far. In a forum, you abide by the forum’s rules of civility.

Right? 🙂
 
FindTruth7 said:
The bible does not say that there is no God, anywhere. Show me, and show me the translation, and where that translatin was translated from, and the credits of those that translated it. the Bible says that there is no God beside Jehova, and to have no other Gods beside Him.

As for the rest of your stuff (impressive, and quite interesting I admit) I will try and demolish it later my friend:p
Click to expand...
Psalm 13:1 (14:1 in Protestant Bibles).

I think the point was that anyone can pull quotes out of context.
 
VociMike said:
So do you believe God lies to us through the natural world? Or that he “tests our faith” by misleading us through the natural world? Or are we humans just too stupid to do any real science?

I don’t see any alternatives, do you?
Click to expand...
A worldview should not influence the conclusions.

The idea of God misleading us is bogus. We are limited beings, so we do not see the complete picture. Until we get this notion of a deceiver God out of our heads we are at risk.
 
mlz said:
I agree with you. The Church is NOT against evolution. God can work through anything, however He chooses. We must know that HE CREATES 🙂 There is a real “trend” these days to agrue against evolution since some of those that are not Christian (in fact very anti-Christian, like Dawkins, support evolution) But there ARE “Theistic Evolutionists”, those that believe that God could work through evolution. Many scientists in the Catholic faith consider themselves in this part of the spectrum of how they view creation.

Mary
Click to expand...
Did God know what Adam would look like?
 
Is this a forum for people to express their opinions? If it is not then all I can say is Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all. And Goodbye and God Bless you all djohn. By the way I sent a message a couple of hours ago about my ancestors conversion to Catholicism in 1837. Please do not tell me that people could not get baptised twice. As they most certainly did And they are registered in the baptism books of many Catholic churches when they became converts Like my gggrandad P S I think it is called a conditional baptism. Where the priest says ’ If you have not been baptised before ’ etc
 
lozeerose said:
Those of us who believe in science and God believe that God gave us science as a means to understand His ways and better worship him as the Creator. But many times Young Earth theorists seems to limit God’s ability. God has no boundaries: time and space included.

…I am just saying that science is the study of the physical world through physical means but that does not mean that God is not there…He gave us our brains.

And of course no one should make fun of anyone…at least in malice with an intention to hurt - between friends and in good fun…I think is okay.👍
Click to expand...
Hi lozeerose,
I guess the objection I was making was a little obscure. Will try to state it a little more clearly.

What upsets me with evolutionists and “old world” people is that they state their beliefs as absolute fact. The world IS ? years old; Man EVOLVED from…
The actual facts are:
  1. We don’t know how old the world is.
  2. We don’t know for certain whether or not man evolved.
By the way, I love science also. Physics and math were my favorites.

Nita
 
Nita said:
Hi lozeerose,
I guess the objection I was making was a little obscure. Will try to state it a little more clearly.

What upsets me with evolutionists and “old world” people is that they state their beliefs as absolute fact. The world IS ? years old; Man EVOLVED from…
The actual facts are:
  1. We don’t know how old the world is.
  2. We don’t know for certain whether or not man evolved.
By the way, I love science also. Physics and math were my favorites.

Nita
Click to expand...
and we do not know how life began.
 
Just a quick peek through this thread gave me a chuckle.
Honestly - - -
The longer I am a Catholic the more subjects I find need to be catagorized as, “The Hole in the Sand” subjects.
By that I am refering, of course, to the Augustine story of the “little boy” trying to pour the ocean into a small hole on the beach.

Subjects such as Creationism vs Evolution, Predestination, OSAS, etc. have no immediate impact upon my faith or how I practice it or present the faith to others. They are wheel spinning irresolvable puzzles that frankly, in my opinion, should be left alone.
What possible difference can it make to me or anyone else whether God made the Earth in six days or six million or 6 billion years.

Peace
James
 
buffalo said:
Because Adam is the first human and very special.
Click to expand...
That has no bearing on whether or not God knew what he looked like. If God is omniscient then God has always known what every living organism would look like from the smallest bacterium to the largest whale.

rossum
 
rossum said:
That has no bearing on whether or not God knew what he looked like. If God is omniscient then God has always known what every living organism would look like from the smallest bacterium to the largest whale.

rossum
Click to expand...
So did He just sat back and wait to give it enough time to realize what He already knew would happen?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top