S
Silvereel
Guest
I believe he said the earth was that old… the earth is around 4 billion.
The Missing Link has Been Found how will this change morality?
- Status
A
Arandur
Guest
Great analogy. We’re not arguing the existence of the original author. We’re arguing what method He used. Just as we successively develop better iterations of machines, so God created a system by which His creation would evolve. How much greater is God’s creation that He was able to set in motion a self-propagating system, when we must take an active role in almost everything we create? We are only recently becoming able to develop programs that can modify themselves and spawn new programs. God did that on an inconceivably more vast level.I don’t get this argument. Creationsist claim that similarity in design is prove of a common designer.
If I look at a Ford and a Honda, I see very similar designs. Creationsists use the argument that an evolutionist could argue that one car evolved from the other. They use that argument to disprove the evolutionists evidence (fossils, DNA)
However, can’t we apply the Creationist’s argument of a common designer? Couldn’t we look at the two cars, see the many similarities, and conclude that they were made by the same designer (engineer)?
Since we know that all cars are not designed by the same person (Wasn’t the car invented indepedently by 2?), the evolution argument actually fits better. The idea of the car didn’t spring from nothing. If you look at the first cars, they look a lot like what came before them - horse-drawn passenger buggies. Why? Because the use was teh same. The design of the earlier fit the needs of the later. As time went on, the newest cars look a lot like the ones just before, and less like the earliest. Good innovations are kept, and bad are thrown out. Elements that aren’t needed because the function has been taken over by another mechanism are dropped - cranks, clutches on automatics, manual chokes, etc. Things that become obsolete, because a new element is introduced are eliminated - vent windows replaced by air conditioning.
The lemons die out, quickly and expensively.
I still miss vent windows.
I think the image of a God who did NOT use evolution is the image of a comparatively unimpressive God.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Well guys, I’m sticking with my theory of Truth either being a troll or an impressionable kid. One day, he acts like evolution sounds more sensible. The next, it’s a “farce” as he calls it. He swings from one extreme to another daily.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Arandur, this is a good point. I being my undergraduate seminars by telling the students that they have to earn the right to criticize an idea. Before they have the right to judge a theory they have to show that they understand it clearly and can articulate it fairly.
I’ve been trying to discover the exact source of the OPs various vituperations against evolution. I can’t find one smoking gun, but the general flavour is that of Kent Hovind, who uses such phrases as:
(1) Were you there?
(2) No species ever gave birth to another
(3) Evolution is a joke
(4) Carbon dating is useless
(5) Humans and chimps have different numbers of chromosomes
The difficulty with Catholic Answers is that we are educating a parade, to use a saying of Dr. Genie Scott. It’s hard to have a high-level theological conversation when we continually have to start at the elementary level.
StAnastasia
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
I just noticed that myself.
On one of his 4 threads he makes it seem as if he now accepts evolution and is on the verge of atheism because of it (or deism).
On another he sounds like a rabid Fundie making the usual claims of “evolution doesn’t explain XY or Z”
I’m going to go along with troll or split personality.
R
ricmat
Guest
Funny. You don’t have a clue what ID is all about, and you criticize it regularly (using arguments against 6 day creationism - which is not ID).
Also funny…in many of your posts you have a tendency to “remind” people that they are debating somebody who knows more than they do (or so you think). In this case, you go out of your way to mention teaching “undergraduate seminars.” This is only one of many methods that you use. Other of your methods include mentioning in passing that you just got back from thus and such a conference where you rubbed elbows or ate dinner with famous Mr. X. That may intimidate some people into submission (which of course is your intent). But I’ve met a lot of PhD’s who were, well, less than stellar intellects - not to mention totally lacking in common sense. So it would be better just to use whatever arguments you have rather than claiming that you must be correct because you teach undergraduates.
Just a helpful hint. Have a nice day.
Oops…almost forgot this part of your post.
Yes, of course, hard to have high-level theological conversations. Educating a parade. Elementary levels. How difficult this must be for one of your caliber! Well, suck it up, and keep a stiff upper lip. Offer up your sufferings to God - it’s supposed to be good for your soul. Perhaps these tribulations of yours will be cause for future beatification and you will be on your way to real sainthood. Instead of just a username.
Or you could start a thread in which only PhD’s are allowed to participate.
Or you could just leave.
A
Arandur
Guest
Perhaps you could do what you want her to do and explain just what you mean by Intelligent Design and how it is different from Creationism, how it is scientific on the same level that evolution is. Please, be clear on definitions if you do. I find that many ID proponents seem to want to take complexity theory and apply it to an interventionist Designer.Funny. You don’t have a clue what ID is all about, and you criticize it regularly (using arguments against 6 day creationism - which is not ID).
Also funny…in many of your posts you have a tendency to “remind” people that they are debating somebody who knows more than they do (or so you think). In this case, you go out of your way to mention teaching “undergraduate seminars.” This is only one of many methods that you use. Other of your methods include mentioning in passing that you just got back from thus and such a conference where you rubbed elbows or ate dinner with famous Mr. X. That may intimidate some people into submission (which of course is your intent). But I’ve met a lot of PhD’s who were, well, less than stellar intellects - not to mention totally lacking in common sense. So it would be better just to use whatever arguments you have rather than claiming that you must be correct because you teach undergraduates.
Just a helpful hint. Have a nice day.
Oops…almost forgot this part of your post.
Yes, of course, hard to have high-level theological conversations. Educating a parade. Elementary levels. How difficult this must be for one of your caliber! Well, suck it up, and keep a stiff upper lip. Offer up your sufferings to God - it’s supposed to be good for your soul. Perhaps these tribulations of yours will be cause for future beatification and you will be on your way to real sainthood. Instead of just a username.
Or you could start a thread in which only PhD’s are allowed to participate.
Or you could just leave.
I think God is great enough to set processes in motion sufficient to create all the wonderful diversity of our universe without constant supernatural intervention. I think the size and age of the universe is evidence of His infinite greatness, so far above our own, and to belittle Him by placing Him in some much tinier box of time and space, and to limit His power to immediate, primary Creation (rather than subsequent self-sustaining systems), is a sad and prideful attempt to control God within the bounds of human perspective.
T
TruthisBeauty7
Guest
The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." T.L. Moor, pro-evolution ([22], p.22
R
ricmat
Guest
ID is not 6 day creationism. I guess you also didn’t know that.
Here is a good overview.
Me too.
Constant intervention? Do you think that’s what ID is?
You probably think that “fine tuning” refers to constant intervention as well. In fact, it doesn’t. Please read up about it. It has to do with the initial physical constants of nature at the time of the big bang. And no, it doesn’t require constant intervention. It does require a plan / design in order to have things come out correctly.
So you’re saying that God designed self-sustaining systems? Good. He designed them? Really? He designed them “intelligently”? That’s what I think too.
I don’t know about you, but I think the universe is about 14 billion years old, as most ID folks believe. You probably have us (purposely?) confused with 6 day creationists.
Immediate primary creation rather than self-sustaining systems? Of course not. You are setting up straw man arguments based on your ignorance of ID. I believe in micro-evolution. You have no idea what ID is.
But so long as you talk about putting God in a box, I’d have to say that the “trial and error” method of random mutations is not very God-like. It would take a much more powerful God to get it right on the first try.
But even having said that, it looks like God did use a 14 billion year process to get things done. I also believe that he left footprints behind - evidence of Intelligent Design which might be detectable. Which most evolutionists and materialists reject out of hand.
A
Arandur
Guest
I didn’t know which camp you were in. With such a diversity of anti-evolutionists out there (literal Creationists, young-earthers, old-earth creationists, ID, etc), I just lumped you all together as anti-evolutionists for simplicity sake until I learned more specifically what you’re trying to argue. Truthisbeauty has been hard to peg down too. I’ll address ID on the morrow.ID is not 6 day creationism. I guess you also didn’t know that.
Here is a good overview.
Me too.
Constant intervention? Do you think that’s what ID is?
You probably think that “fine tuning” refers to constant intervention as well. In fact, it doesn’t. Please read up about it. It has to do with the initial physical constants of nature at the time of the big bang. And no, it doesn’t require constant intervention. It does require a plan / design in order to have things come out correctly.
So you’re saying that God designed self-sustaining systems? Good. He designed them? Really? He designed them “intelligently”? That’s what I think too.
I don’t know about you, but I think the universe is about 14 billion years old, as most ID folks believe. You probably have us (purposely?) confused with 6 day creationists.
Immediate primary creation rather than self-sustaining systems? Of course not. You are setting up straw man arguments based on your ignorance of ID. I believe in micro-evolution. You have no idea what ID is.
But so long as you talk about putting God in a box, I’d have to say that the “trial and error” method of random mutations is not very God-like. It would take a much more powerful God to get it right on the first try.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Arandur, most positions on the following spectrum are represented on Catholic Answers forums:
Flat Earthers – mostly defunct
Geocentrists – Robert Sungenis (alive and kicking)
Young Earth Creationism (YEC), including Hexaemeral or Six Day (ICR, AiG, CRI)
Omphalists (Philip Gosse; “last-Thursdayism”)
Old Earth Creationism (OEC) which includes
- Gap Theory OEC – Custance
- Day Age OEC – Watchtower Society
Progressive Creationism – Hugh Ross
Intelligent Design theory – Discovery Institute
Process Thought – John Cobb, Charles Hartshorne
Non-Theistic Evolution
- Steve Gould’s NOMA (semi-agnosticism)
- Steven Weinberg - resigned atheism (universe is absurd)
- “Evangelical atheism” – Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Christopher Hitchens
S
StAnastasia
Guest
This is by a non-biologist from 1925. Irrelevant.
P
pnewton
Guest
I know that I this does not help this discussion directly, but is is important to remember the group not mentioned. Most like myself do not post much because we see this as outside our area of expertise, irrelevant to theology and something which the Church allows difference of opinion. I appreciate the opinions of the knowledgeable here that post. Thanks. I will return to my lurking.
W
wasmit
Guest
your personal acceptance or denial of the theory of evolution has no effect upon faith and morality.
R
rossum
Guest
“God does not exist” - The Bible
Convinced? No, neither was I by your quotemine, to which you have again failed to give an adequate reference…
rossum
D
DLClark
Guest
Macro evolution has not been proven true. there is no evidence for it?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Are you making a statement or asking a question?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
As an addendum to the above spectrum, there seem to be several iterations of Flat Earthism and Flat Earth Socieites – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
Clarification: Omphalism (from the Greek omphalos or navel) claims that God created Adam and Eve with belly buttons that had the appearance of past functionality. The same is true of every aspect of the universe – trees created old but with growth rings, light “already on its way” from stars, fossils planted in the ground – Omphalists claim that the world merely looks old. It could have been created last Thursday, with our memories already in place, and we would never be able to detect the difference.
And I should have included with OEC (Old Earth Creationism) the Harun Yahya group in Turkey. They accept an ancient earth, but they reject evolution, arguing that species alive today are like species 400 million years ago.
StAnastasia
A
avflf
Guest
Wrote this sometime back . Some light reading after all the technical and scientific posts we’ve been getting.
Of Fools and Horses
Those of an evolutionary persuasion,
Who can’t see design in anything,
Maintain that a natural explanation
Accounts for the life of each being.
From rocks dissolved by copious rain
A rich primordial “soup” came to be
And from it, they solemnly maintain,
Evolved the first ancestor of all you see.
Trillions of molecules in flotation
With billions of years in hand
Hit on a successful combination
And formed an organic strand.
The path to life now open-wide
Spurred “Chance” on its way
And a few million years aside
Brought complex forms to play.
These in turn “specialized”
And together they became fish
But much later “Chance” realized
Land would be their perfect niche.
So a mechanism – “mutation”
Began to provide the beat
That gave a neat explanation
How fins turned to legs and feet.
Thus came to be the reptile,
That from amphibians descended,
And then it evolved, after a while,
To mammals, as “Chance” intended.
Then appeared the mighty whale
(Scales to skin on body and brow)
And along the evolutionary trail
Came the hide to dress the cow.
Further speciation came to pass
And thru selection of the fitter
A branch would feed on grass
Another would eat the grass eater.
Reptiles, too, gave birth to birds,
And though the prototypes couldn’t fly
A few of the genes’ four letter words
Made some to rise and soar the sky.
Then the primates came to be
First with tails, but along the way
They’d drop off, and eventually
Homo erectus ruled the day.
From “erectus” to “sapiens” was fast,
A couple of million years or so,
And “sapiens sapiens” can now at last
Know how it all began long ago.
Professing to be wise they stoop
To this fairytale of a theory
That teaches that primordial “soup”
Brought forth the likes of you and me.
Of Fools and Horses
Those of an evolutionary persuasion,
Who can’t see design in anything,
Maintain that a natural explanation
Accounts for the life of each being.
From rocks dissolved by copious rain
A rich primordial “soup” came to be
And from it, they solemnly maintain,
Evolved the first ancestor of all you see.
Trillions of molecules in flotation
With billions of years in hand
Hit on a successful combination
And formed an organic strand.
The path to life now open-wide
Spurred “Chance” on its way
And a few million years aside
Brought complex forms to play.
These in turn “specialized”
And together they became fish
But much later “Chance” realized
Land would be their perfect niche.
So a mechanism – “mutation”
Began to provide the beat
That gave a neat explanation
How fins turned to legs and feet.
Thus came to be the reptile,
That from amphibians descended,
And then it evolved, after a while,
To mammals, as “Chance” intended.
Then appeared the mighty whale
(Scales to skin on body and brow)
And along the evolutionary trail
Came the hide to dress the cow.
Further speciation came to pass
And thru selection of the fitter
A branch would feed on grass
Another would eat the grass eater.
Reptiles, too, gave birth to birds,
And though the prototypes couldn’t fly
A few of the genes’ four letter words
Made some to rise and soar the sky.
Then the primates came to be
First with tails, but along the way
They’d drop off, and eventually
Homo erectus ruled the day.
From “erectus” to “sapiens” was fast,
A couple of million years or so,
And “sapiens sapiens” can now at last
Know how it all began long ago.
Professing to be wise they stoop
To this fairytale of a theory
That teaches that primordial “soup”
Brought forth the likes of you and me.
R
ricmat
Guest
So, who came up with these definitions?
It seems risky to me to try to lump things together unless there’s a definition for how the lumping was accomplished. That being said, it is an interesting breakdown, and if nothing else tells us how StA sees the world.
One comment on the lumping of Intelligent Design into Old Earth Creationism. I’m not sure if that’s the right category or not, but from this definition of OEC on wikipedia (the accuracy of which is usually suspect) - “**OEC rejects the scientific consensus accepting **evolution” - I’d like to post this note from the Discovery Institute website. The DI is generally considered to be the leaders today in the ID movement although the general concept of ID goes back to Aquinas and beyond.
From the DI website:
It seems that ID accepts pretty much all of the evidence of evolution. The part they disagree with (as do I) is the “random and undirected” part.
God seems to interact with his world in many ways. Why not (also) in the evolutionary process? Perhaps he enjoys it, like a music composer conducting the orchestra playing his music.
And if God is acting in this universe (i.e. is not the God of the Diestic heresy) - why would he try to cover his tracks or his presence using “randomness?”
- Status