The End of Evolution

[mlz]

Evidence for an Old Earth

Evidence for Evolution

Second one is being updated, someday I’ll finish.

Phil P

Thank you for your information! It’s very good. I think people are easily taken into the “young earth creationist” mentality due to the fact that many atheists (Dawkins etc.) are on the side of evolution therefore evolution must be wrong. Dawkins and those like minded are more materialist evolutionists which is different from theistic evolutionists. This is a distinction that needs to be made. Science is not “evil” as some are suggesting. Our witness to the world must not be from a position of ignorance. We do not need to be afraid of science. I am not fearful of what science shows. God is above and in ALL! He is the Creator but has given us the intellect to investigate His Wonderful Creation!! Praise be to HIM!
Mary

 

[djohn]

I keep getting emails saying someone has answered me. But I cannot see anyone replying to me here when I log in. Someone’s answering buffalo rossom etc But I cannot see anyone answering me ie djohn. I am always ignored !!! P S Someone’s written on here What does it matter how the world came into existance. Well if it came into existance on its own then there is no need for a God. Nature would be God. Terrible cruel nature. And if there is a God He lets this terrible Nature take its course. Unless God loves us so much that He allows this to give us life. The alternative is to not have any life. I think when the Universe ends the word written across the sky will not be WHY but will be LOVE. That’s how much God loves us.

 

[djohn]

If someone said they could do something and people found out they could not how long would that business last ? Not very long eh? Well seeing not one prayer has never been answered in the history of mankind imho How come so many people still believe in God? If there is going to be an earthquake no amount of praying to God will ever stop it. So what is the point of prayer?: Isn’t it best to say that God has given us the right to do things outside the playground. And then when we die we go back inside the walls.

 

[rossum]

Well seeing not one prayer has never been answered in the history of mankind imho How come so many people still believe in God?

All prayers are answered, even if the answer is most often “no”. On a purely statistical basis prayers like “Oh mighty Shiva, please let grandma stay alive until Diwali” will sometimes succeed.

As far as I am aware, no studies have ever shown that prayers to any particular God/gods are statistically more successful than any others. If there had been then I suspect that the worshippers of those God/gods would be telling everyone else about it at great length.

rossum

 

[thistle]

I don’t have a profile. I’m at my uncle’s visiting, using his computer. He’s a theistic evolutionist, i’m not.

Its irrelevant what computer you are using. When you register you have the chance to (name removed by moderator)ut your religion or whatever you are. It always strikes me that anyone who wants to engage in discussion should be honest enough to tell us who (not just your name) we are discussing a topic with. Even atheists in the forums state they are atheists. Why are you afraid to tell us?

 

[FindTruth7]

Its irrelevant what computer you are using. When you register you have the chance to (name removed by moderator)ut your religion or whatever you are. It always strikes me that anyone who wants to engage in discussion should be honest enough to tell us who (not just your name) we are discussing a topic with. Even atheists in the forums state they are atheists. Why are you afraid to tell us?

Oh I’m sorry, I didn’t quite understand. I’m a bit slow at times But I’m Catholic, like my uncle. I thought you guys just knew. Sorry.

Findtruth7 is HiS name and profile too, not mine. Just using it.

 

[FindTruth7]

"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."

What is a Poe?

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

And yet, what do we have? Bacteria

"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]"

I’ll submit to this, along with my other arguments about the moon, seems I’ve been owned, I admit. Thanks for the humility, in a good way, thanks.

"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."​

So where are these transitional forms? Why do Creationists time and time again make the strict claim there are no clear-cut transitions? I mean, sure, you can take a fossil and interpret it to be transitional, kind of like the duck-billed platypus, but that also could be just it’s own unique kind of creature. Are there any fossils leading up to such a creature? No, there are not.

.
No tell me, what do you have to say to strata found in places that is over a few miles long? Where in the world is strata being layed down in such great sizes? Nowhere. I would say the flood makes a lot of sense. How do you explain the grand canyon? Is it not layers of mud laid upon one another? How do you know it formed over millions of years? Does each layer in the canyon date different?​

 

[rossum]

What is a Poe?

Google for “Poe’s Law”: “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won’t mistake for the genuine article.”

I was implying that your OP might not have been genuine, but a parody of Creationism made up by a non-Creationist.

And yet, what do we have? Bacteria

Learn some biology - in particular what bacteria and eukaryotes are. Then study how wide a range the eukaryotes cover. If you see no problem with bacteria evolving then consider the same with all the different eukaryotes.

I’ll submit to this, along with my other arguments about the moon, seems I’ve been owned, I admit. Thanks for the humility, in a good way, thanks.

Learn from you experience. You are far from the first person who has trusted what you have been told by creationists and tried it out on the outside world. Creationist arguments sound good when being preached to the choir. They fail, and fail badly, when put before a more sceptical audience. Science has masses of data to back it up - YEC has very little beyond plausible, but incorrect, distortions of the scientific evidence. There is more than one interpretation of Genesis possible.

So where are these transitional forms? Why do Creationists time and time again make the strict claim there are no clear-cut transitions? I mean, sure, you can take a fossil and interpret it to be transitional, kind of like the duck-billed platypus, but that also could be just it’s own unique kind of creature. Are there any fossils leading up to such a creature? No, there are not.

Yes there are, it is just that your unreliable creationist sources do not tell you about them. See The Reptile to Mammal Transition.

No tell me, what do you have to say to strata found in places that is over a few miles long? Where in the world is strata being layed down in such great sizes? Nowhere.

Your creationist sources are misinforming you again (I hope that you are noticing a pattern emerging here). Strata are forming now at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, at the bottom of the Indian Ocean and so on. Those three are all bigger than “a few miles”.

I would say the flood makes a lot of sense.

It does not. It fails on at least geology, biology and physics. Attempting to compress billions of years of time into one year gets into immense problems - for one thing there are many large meteorite impact craters known, all of which would have landed during the flood year and put in enough energy to boil the oceans. Noah would have been parboiled along with everything else on the Ark! See Meteor Craters and the Flood Year for a detailed explanation from a Christian - Glenn Morton. The rest of his site is well worth reading as well.

How do you explain the grand canyon? Is it not layers of mud laid upon one another? How do you know it formed over millions of years? Does each layer in the canyon date different?

Yes, each layer in the Grand Canyon does have a different date. The layers were rock at the time the canyon was formed - could you get mud to stand up that high without collapsing?

rossum

 

[VociMike]

Number 3: God created the world in 6 days, the earth is about 10-12 thousand years old, and the evidence in science is better interpreted for Creationism (I’m not a Protestant by the way)

And again, why have more than a few evolutionists, especially Steven Jay Gould, claimed the fossil record does not support gradual change?

Does the evidence in science support a 12,000 year old earth or a 5 billion year old earth? Does it support a 12,000 year old universe or a 14 billion year old universe?

 

[VociMike]

A worldview should not influence the conclusions.

It should if the worldview states that conclusions cannot be reliable statements of reality.

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.

So are humans capable of understanding anything of value via the scientific method, or should we just abandon it as leading to as much error as truth?

BTW, I have heard Protestants claim that God’s purpose in placing “deceiving” dinosaur bones in the fossil record is precisely to test our faith.

 

[FindTruth7]

:clapping: Bravo Rossum, Voice Mike, and all others refuting me, hehe. I hope you all are not mad, please forgive me; yes, this was a POE

I had recently looked at my old creationist books like “The Collapse of Evolution,” “The Young Earth,” “Darwin’s Leap of Faith” (where John Weldon and John Anckerberg promise that NO ONE should still accept evolution after putting down their book), and was like “woah, I used to buy this stuff?” So I decided to pretend I still believed it and came here to see how well I could defend it. Of course I could have sight more additional things from Bones of Contention, or Answers in Genesis, but didn’t feel like doing all the writing. Just a quick summary of typical creationism.

Yes, YEC sounds really exciting listening to the preachers, but fails horribly when studied scientificly. God just didn’t do it that way. And after a visit with my former pastor, I thought more about it, cause he totaly despises evolution, and couldn’t fathom that I know accepted it.

I kind of want to keep going, say a few more things to see how easily they can be refuted, but I’m so tired. I do hope you’re all not mad at me, it was kind of a test for myself, and a look back into the past. And now others can learn something.

Yes, of course I ackowledge evolution hehe.

God bless:thumbsup:

 

[grannymh]

You didn’t answer my question. Given that science (and the evidence it offers) is not compatible with Creationism, we must believe either

1. God is deliberately deceiving us through his creation
2. Humans are incapable of discovering truth through science

Which is it, in your opinion?

I simply can’t wrap my mind around this post.

Regarding the compatible statement. Science seems too broad (shouldn’t it be evolutionary biology) while creationism is too narrow.(what about people who believe that God created the universe but who are not creationists)

Both 1) and 2) seem to be false. However, one doesn’t know what God’s deception is. Nor does one know if it is relative truth or absolute truth. So maybe one or both the points are true.

I’m sure that you are sincere in seeking answers. It is I who doesn’t understand. I do hope you get some good answers.

 

[buffalo]

BTW, I have heard Protestants claim that God’s purpose in placing “deceiving” dinosaur bones in the fossil record is precisely to test our faith.

I do not agree with this. However, God does kind of keep us on the fence, if you will.

 

[mlz]

:clapping: Bravo Rossum, Voice Mike, and all others refuting me, hehe. I hope you all are not mad, please forgive me; yes, this was a POE

I had recently looked at my old creationist books like “The Collapse of Evolution,” “The Young Earth,” “Darwin’s Leap of Faith” (where John Weldon and John Anckerberg promise that NO ONE should still accept evolution after putting down their book), and was like “woah, I used to buy this stuff?” So I decided to pretend I still believed it and came here to see how well I could defend it. Of course I could have sight more additional things from Bones of Contention, or Answers in Genesis, but didn’t feel like doing all the writing. Just a quick summary of typical creationism.

Yes, YEC sounds really exciting listening to the preachers, but fails horribly when studied scientificly. God just didn’t do it that way. And after a visit with my former pastor, I thought more about it, cause he totaly despises evolution, and couldn’t fathom that I know accepted it.

I kind of want to keep going, say a few more things to see how easily they can be refuted, but I’m so tired. I do hope you’re all not mad at me, it was kind of a test for myself, and a look back into the past. And now others can learn something.

Yes, of course I ackowledge evolution hehe.

God bless:thumbsup:

Oh, my, you had me fooled! My daughter wrote her master’s paper on this topic this summer so I was interested in joining the debate. Being a teacher of science this is a “hot topic” these days and from what I’ve seen and read it will continue.

I forgive you,
Mary

 

[rossum]

:clapping: Bravo Rossum, Voice Mike, and all others refuting me, hehe. I hope you all are not mad, please forgive me; yes, this was a POE

Well done, very nicely judged. I almost twigged it, but not quite. Oh well.

rossum

 

[cpayne]

:clapping: Bravo Rossum, Voice Mike, and all others refuting me, hehe. I hope you all are not mad, please forgive me; yes, this was a POE

I had recently looked at my old creationist books like “The Collapse of Evolution,” “The Young Earth,” “Darwin’s Leap of Faith” (where John Weldon and John Anckerberg promise that NO ONE should still accept evolution after putting down their book), and was like “woah, I used to buy this stuff?” So I decided to pretend I still believed it and came here to see how well I could defend it. Of course I could have sight more additional things from Bones of Contention, or Answers in Genesis, but didn’t feel like doing all the writing. Just a quick summary of typical creationism.

Yes, YEC sounds really exciting listening to the preachers, but fails horribly when studied scientificly. God just didn’t do it that way. And after a visit with my former pastor, I thought more about it, cause he totaly despises evolution, and couldn’t fathom that I know accepted it.

I kind of want to keep going, say a few more things to see how easily they can be refuted, but I’m so tired. I do hope you’re all not mad at me, it was kind of a test for myself, and a look back into the past. And now others can learn something.

Yes, of course I ackowledge evolution hehe.

God bless:thumbsup:

Not that I care too much one way or the other, but is anyone else a bit bothered at the waste of time and energy?

 

[rossum]

Not that I care too much one way or the other, but is anyone else a bit bothered at the waste of time and energy?

If we had been replying to a real creationist then the effect would probably have been much the same: no change in the poster’s views but hopefully some impact on the other readers.

A little light amusement is often welcome as well, things can get rather too serious here on occasions.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Not that I care too much one way or the other, but is anyone else a bit bothered at the waste of time and energy?

It’s fun. The debate here in the forums usually is whether or not the Catholic Church can embrace theistic-evolution. I think it is a very important debate.

 

[cpayne]

Well, okay. But what about the implied tone of superiority: that is, I’m going to make a creationist sound as stupid as possible? I don’t agree with young-earth creationists, but it still seems a bit uncharitable.

Anyway, I guess we’re done here. Bye to all and may God richly bless you!

 

[buffalo]

Well, okay. But what about the implied tone of superiority: that is, I’m going to make a creationist sound as stupid as possible? I don’t agree with young-earth creationists, but it still seems a bit uncharitable.

Anyway, I guess we’re done here. Bye to all and may God richly bless you!

It is typical - I am a scientist, you are not, if you would learn science you would agree with me, etc…

I hold a superior position - you do not, therefore you are ignorant and worse.

But, is their position complete? No. Is it superior? No, because it is incomplete.

On the other hand, we must not hold onto superstitions. The other side holds that all non-scientific beliefs are indeed superstitious. Round and round we go.

Perhaps that is why Catholics hold certain truths to be mysterious.