C
Cruciferi
Guest
Or did it Evolve? 
Last edited:
- Status
W
Wozza
Guest
On the assumption that you have access to Google or some type of search engine then there is ZERO excuse for you posting something that is so obviously, amazingly, mind-boggingly and jaw-droppingly wrong.
Open up Google and type:
Empirically testing evolution.
Then type:
Falsifying evolution.
When you have done that come back and correct what you previously posted. An apology won’t be required because I assume it was ignorance and not malice that you posted it. But a retraction will be.
Last edited:
U
Uriel1
Guest
Evolution Theory made no predictions and therefore is not falsifiable. Being not falsifiable means that it is not empirical science; rather it is a speculation, a philosophy and nothing more, and that is why the prize will never be claimed. This might help you understand catholic theology, on what is a Catholic website
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
At the very least I had expected you to at least check what I asked and then perhaps disagreed for whatever reason.
But this is par for the course on these threads:
‘Evolution is wrong because X, Y and Z!’
‘No, you are mistaken. Please check this link for confirmation’.
Deathly silence…tumbling tumbleweed.
In fact, that’s the best one can hope for. Quite often, as is tbe case here, the incorrect claim is simply repeated ad nauseum. If you don’t know something, that’s acceptable. But you are CHOOSING not to know something.
Beats me.
U
Uriel1
Guest
It only beats you because you choose to ignore that God created the cosmos, and you choose to disbelieve Moses. Did you bother to watch the video?
Last edited:
A
angel12
Guest
One can quite easily accept that our knowledge has increased in the past few thousand years without “ignoring that God created the cosmos.”
You should look up “false dichotomy.”
W
Wozza
Guest
As per a previous post I made on another thread, lef’s find some common ground:
Let’s go back to a time when I believed that God created the cosmos. At this moment I don’t know if He actually
did or did not. But for the purpose of this discussion I will accept that He did. All good?
Now it STILL beats me as to why you don’t check to see if what you have claimed is true. For example, you said that evolution could not be falsified. This is patently false. And to save you looking this up yourself, here’s a link and a quote from it:
‘Unicellular organisms, for example, appear before multicellular ones. Jawless fish precede jawed fish. Lunged fish precede amphibians. Amphibians precede reptiles. Reptiles with scales precede mammals and birds with modified scales (fur and feathers). Apes precede humans. All it would take is one or two exceptions to seriously challenge the theory.’ Evolution myths: Evolution cannot be disproved | New Scientist
Now whether I believe in God or not doesn’t change the above. Whether God created the cosmos or not doesn’t change the above. If the process of evolution as currently understood is correct, then it can be falsified using any number of the above methods.
Now proceeding from this point is blazingly simple. We just need to know if you accept that are not. It’s that easy. You have said it cannot be falsified and I have shown you a number of ways in which it can.
And I want to point out something important. You did NOT say that evolution cannot be falsified because of X, Y and Z. You made a bald statement that it couldn’t. Period.
U
Uriel1
Guest
and the $250,000 prize - have you claimed it?
U
Uriel1
Guest
Catholic theology teaches that God created everything from nothing, and that God lovingly maintains His creation to stop it degrading to nothing.Uriel1:
One can quite easily accept that our knowledge has increased in the past few thousand years without “ignoring that God created the cosmos.”
You should look up “false dichotomy.”
God has in his mind the nature of everything, and because those natures are all in God’s mind all creatures essentially stay the same; dogs stay as dogs, and frogs stay as frogs, etc.
God imposes structure on reality and from Aristotle down we have recognised four causes of things.
Four (Aristotelian) causes. 1. Material cause (material) 2. Formal cause (form) 3. Efficient cause (who or what brought it into existence) 4. Final cause (why) with God being the final cause.
"Evolution Theory" cannot live with the Genesis Account of God creating the cosmos, and the Catholic Church which teaches Creation, does not teach evolution as the cause of the cosmos and us being here.
Metaphysics
Evolution theory is just metaphysics, nothing more than a philosophical system pretending to be science, rather than an empirical science itself. Yet worryingly, Evolution is being taught to our school-children as if it were fact.
$250,000 Prize awaiting unclaimed since 1990
There has been a $250,000 prize awaiting collection for anyone proving evolution through scientific tests for 28 years. And in 2018, that prize remains unclaimed !
W
Wozza
Guest
And to save you the bother to do the searching yourself, read the following:
‘The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven.’ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...0811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-sc
So there is no prize for proving the theory of evolution because it is a theory (the clue is in the name) and BY DEFINITION theories cannot be proved.
So Kent Hovind (for it is he that is ocfering the prize) is treating people as being gullible and having limited knowledge of the subject. And he also includes these qualifications for ‘proving’ evolution (from his website)
- NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
- Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
- Planets and stars formed from space dust.
- Matter created life by itself.
“AiG would prefer that creationists refrained from gimmicks like this.”
Be careful who you listen to, Uriel. Some people play fast and loose with the truth.
W
Wozza
Guest
It is hard discussing these matters with someone who doesn’t know the Church’s position on this. I sincerely hope that you are not intentionally implying that the Catholic Church rejects evolution.
If I were Catholic I might seriously consider reporting that comment.
U
Uriel1
Guest
Funny that; arguing against Genesis on a Catholic website. Show us the teaching of the Church on Evolution my friend; the Church teaches Genesis as the inspired Word of God
W
Wozza
Guest
So no comments on the incorrect statements you have been making? You’d prefer to ignore and deflect?
You keep posting and I’ll keep asking.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Nor does evolution propose that these events took place without God. It says nothing about God.
W
Wozza
Guest
I’d be more than happy to accept that God controls the whole process. But many of our friends who argue against evolution are fundamentalists so they will ignore me saying it and even more bizarrely will also ignore fellow Catholics saying it.
These threads are not actually about evolution. They are about a strict, fundamental and literal acceptance of Genesis. Arguments about alleles and genetic entropy and punctuated equilibrium are just smoke and mirrors.
We may as well be discussing the pros and conns of gopher wood as they relate to building an ark.
Last edited:
M
mVitus
Guest
Ever read Humani Generis? It’s one of the first documents that evolution and Catholicism can be compatible.
Inspired doesn’t equal strictly historical. So A figurative approach in Genesis is okay.
It’s a little sad to me when in the course of these threads I see agnostics/atheists/non-Catholic theists who are more knowledgeable about the Church’s position on evolution than some of my fellow Catholics.
U
Uriel1
Guest
You mean the 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis . which made plain the Pope’s sincere hope that evolution will be shown to have been a mere transient scientific fad, and goes on to challenge those who “imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution …explains the origin of all things.” Are we talking about the same 1950 encyclical?Uriel1:
Ever read Humani Generis? It’s one of the first documents that evolution and Catholicism can be compatible.
Inspired doesn’t equal strictly historical. So A figurative approach in Genesis is okay.mVitus:
Uriel1:
Ever read Humani Generis? It’s one of the first documents that evolution and Catholicism can be compatible.
Inspired doesn’t equal strictly historical. So A figurative approach in Genesis is okay.
It’s a little sad to me when in the course of these threads I see agnostics/atheists/non-Catholic theists who are more knowledgeable about the Church’s position on evolution than some of my fellow Catholics.
It’s a little sad to me when in the course of these threads I see agnostics/atheists/non-Catholic theists who are more knowledgeable about the Church’s position on evolution than some of my fellow Catholics.
Last edited:
U
Uriel1
Guest
@mVitus
The church simply doesn’t take a position on evolution
The church simply doesn’t take a position on evolution
Last edited:
M
mVitus
Guest
Pope Pius XII was dealing with a less-developed version of evolution so it’s not surprising he held skepticism about it. But while he condemned polygenism (a different topic for a different thread as there’s a lot to be said on it) he was okay with evolution, a stance later popes have not reversed.
W
Wozza
Guest
How about your position on those posts which were shown to be wrong? Any chance of a retraction?
Last edited:
- Status