Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

[o_mlly]

In the case of evolution the problem is that it’s only the religious …

Not so.

Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists | Fern Elsdon-Baker | The Guardian

That’s a big problem as it’s strictly a theological view that tries to sound sciency.

That’s false. Creation has always been professed as a belief of faith and has never been proposed as science.

Not so with evolution. What do you mean by “it’s”? Everyone is fine if you mean “adaptation - aka microevolution” but if you mean “evolution of microbe to man – aka macroevolution” then …

That’s a big problem as it’s strictly a speculation based on an imaginative view that tries to sound sciency.

 

[rossum]

Almighty God gets the job done in six days.

Yeah, but he does the job in the wrong order. He did birds before land animals, while the evidence shows that birds came after land animals.

Would you trust a workman who does things in the wrong order?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I wish that contemporary science would go with the least complex possibility and that would be Almighty God as the Intelligent Designer.

Science and God are incompatible in that God is supernatural and therefore beyond the realm of science.

Almighty God gets the job done in six days.

All evidence points to other conclusions.

That’s not complex.

Yes it is. The existence of intelligence is highly complex and requires explanation for its presence too.

Evolution requires at least a billion years with lots and lots of trial and error, blind and random mutations, many billions of deaths by natural selection.

That’s simple. Trial and error by deterministic processes that can be described fully by physical laws.

Per today’s standard paradigm, evolution is still not done and there is no providential, intelligent and loving care for what’s been created.

Not true. The “care” is beyond science. One is able to believe in it as well as evolution.

Via an asteroid or other unseen cosmological catastrophe, we could be wiped out at any time. That’s complex.

No, that’s simple because it can be easily described and predicted by physical laws. I’m starting to think you don’t understand anything about simplicity in science.

Why did God make a world that’s 4.5 billion years old if He created it in 6 days 6000 years ago?

 

[stoplooklisten]

No, that’s simple because it can be easily described and predicted by physical laws. I’m starting to think you don’t understand anything about simplicity in science.

Why did God make a world that’s 4.5 billion years old if He created it in 6 days 6000 years ago?

A child can understand God making the world in six days. It’s simple.

The laws of physics are not simple. Science doesn’t understand what holds the atoms together. Science bases long ages on assumptions about radioactive decays rates and the speed of light. But, science can’t do alchemy and form elements. Science can’t do abiogenesis and form life. Even the simplest forms of life are way beyond science can do and what could form accidentally. Science bases much on the speed of light being a constant but then says: 1) that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light at the “big bang”, 2) light can be refracted or bent; 3) light can be trapped in a black hole and not be able to escape the black hole. Science doesn’t know how comets are formed. Comets can’t last more than a few thousand years. Science doesn’t know why galaxies have a spiral structure. Science needs to theorize about things that it doesn’t observe to explain what it can’t explain. That’s complex.

God knows all things. God can do all things. God is holy, loving, just and merciful. That’s simple and comprehensive.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

A child can understand God making the world in six days. It’s simple.

That’s not scientific simplicity.

Science doesn’t understand what holds the atoms together.

Yes, it does. This has been established science for decades.

Science bases long ages on assumptions about radioactive decays rates and the speed of light.

Things we’ve tested and proven repeatedly.

But, science can’t do alchemy and form elements.

Wrong again. Not only do fusion and fission change elements from one to the other, scientists have actually turned lead to gold before:

Fact or Fiction?: Lead Can Be Turned into Gold | Scientific American

Science can’t do abiogenesis and form life. Even the simplest forms of life are way beyond science can do and what could form accidentally.

Evolution=/=abiogenesis. I believe one but do not believe the other.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Science bases much on the speed of light being a constant

Because it is, as long as it stays in the same medium.

but then says: 1) that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light at the “big bang”,

Space itself is not matter or energy, and so may expand beyond the speed of light.

1. light can be refracted or bent;

A consequence of changing speeds of light in different mediums.

1. light can be trapped in a black hole and not be able to escape the black hole.

Because the terminal velocity of the black hole is larger than c, the speed of light, as it has such an immense gravitational pull. That is what a black hole is.

Science doesn’t know how comets are formed. Comets can’t last more than a few thousand years.

Wrong! Comets were formed along with the rest of the solar system 4.5 billion years ago from material in the solar system’s accretion disk.

Science doesn’t know why galaxies have a spiral structure.

Not all galaxies do. There are a large variety of galactic structures, and the Milky Way’s spiral structure is likely caused by magnetic forces, which create magnetic fields lined up with the arms of the galaxy.

Science needs to theorize about things that it doesn’t observe to explain what it can’t explain.

We observe things, then use our knowledge about how the world works to theorize about how it got to this state. The universe did not magically change all the laws of physics in the 1700s.

That’s complex.

No. It’s simple. All interactions in the universe can be explained, predicted, and replicated using knowledge gained by mathematical expression of physical laws. Simplicity is not “at the level of a child,” it’s “describing a universal phenomenon that changes based on variable criteria.”

Taking your definition of simplicity, “Objects have a tendency to rest on the surface of the Earth” is the simplest answer, the one science should theorize is true. This is actually the more complex answer because it is not universal. The Newtonian theory of gravity (while flawed at very small scales) is more simple because it relates gravitational attraction everywhere in the universe with one simple equation: Fg=G(M1*M2)/r^2. That’s simple.

God knows all things. God can do all things. God is holy, loving, just and merciful. That’s simple and comprehensive.

It may be to you, but to science it isn’t. God cannot be tested or described in a relation that is universal. As such, we look to the natural world instead.

 

[buffalo]

Would you trust a workman who does things in the wrong order?

Would you trust a theory that gets things in the wrong order?

 

[rossum]

Would you trust a theory that gets things in the wrong order?

Evolution puts birds after the first land animals. Does your theory tell you something different?

 

[Freddy]

rossum:

Science will go for the least complex possibility until more evidence comes along. An Intelligent Designer is more complex than evolution, so science goes with evolution until the evidence shows otherwise.

I wish that contemporary science would go with the least complex possibility and that would be Almighty God as the Intelligent Designer.

You’re looking for the Theological Department, not the Science Department.

 

[Freddy]

Pattylt:

That’s a big problem as it’s strictly a theological view that tries to sound sciency.

That’s false. Creation has always been professed as a belief of faith and has never been proposed as science.

Please. Don’t treat us like idiots.

Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe in 2002:

'…the time is right for a direct approach, a single leap into the origins fray. Introducing a biblically based, scientifically verifiable creation model represents such a leap."

And the ID tome ‘Of Pandas and People’, which was a treaty on creationism had a draft produced in 1987. After the Dover trial when it creationism was deemed unscientific…

…in a new draft of Pandas prepared shortly after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling, approximately 150 uses of the root word “creation”, such as “creationism” and “creationist”, were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design. The definition remained essentially the same, with “intelligent design” substituted for “creation”, and “intelligent creator” changed to “intelligent agency”. Of Pandas and People - Wikipedia

And we’re still waiting for your theory. Any details yet? Still in draft form?

 

[Buzzard3]

Life has always existed in the Buddhist universe

Life on earth has not always existed - how do you believe the first prokaryotes on earth came into existence? Were they the result of an accident of nature, or were they created by a god, or were they the result of natural laws? How?

 

[rossum]

Life on earth has not always existed - how do you believe the first prokaryotes on earth came into existence? Were they the result of an accident of nature, or were they created by a god, or were they the result of natural laws? How?

For the answer to that question, I do not “believe”. Abiogenesis is still being worked on, so currently we only have a set of possible answers with some pieces missing. Your question is one for science, not for either the Bible or the Tripitaka.

 

[o_mlly]

Please. Don’t treat us like idiots.

Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe in 2002:

Hugh Ross? In what diocese does he serve as bishop?

And the ID tome ‘Of Pandas and People’ …

Dembski’s book? Dembski is not a Catholic.

Look up the name of the host of these forums – Catholic Answers. If you wish to not be treated like an idiot don’t post idiotic claims.

 

[rossum]

Look up the name of the host of these forums – Catholic Answers. If you wish to not be treated like an idiot don’t post idiotic claims.

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

– Humani Generis, 36

Catholic enough for you?

Evolution deals with the development of the physical human body from earlier primate ancestors. It says nothing about souls.

 

[o_mlly]

Catholic enough for you?

Evolution deals with the development of the physical human body from earlier primate ancestors. It says nothing about souls.

What point do you think your post makes? The criticism at issue is the proposition that Catholic teaching professes creation as science. She does not. I don’t see the word “creation” in your citation.

 

[Freddy]

rossum:

Catholic enough for you?

Evolution deals with the development of the physical human body from earlier primate ancestors. It says nothing about souls.

What point do you think your post makes? The criticism at issue is the proposition that Catholic teaching professes creation as science. She does not. I don’t see the word “creation” in your citation.

The point is that this statement is patently false:

“Creation has always been professed as a belief of faith and has never been proposed as science.”

Any chance of your theory as to how it all happened being released?

 

[Buzzard3]

For the answer to that question, I do not “believe”. Abiogenesis is still being worked on, so currently we only have a set of possible answers with some pieces missing.

Okay, well it sounds like what you wrote earlier is not true:
“I am Buddhist and I believe that same thing about the origin of life as Christians do: life has existed eternally.”

For starters, Christians don’t believe life on earth has “existed eternally” - Christians believe God created the first life-forms on earth at some definitive point in time. You don’t seem to believe that - you are waiting for science to explain how life on earth arose naturally, which sounds like you exclude the possibility of any form of supernatural creation.

Your question is one for science, not for either the Bible or the Tripitaka.

No, my question is not “for science” … it is for one’s interpretation of reality, which may include some from of creation, which is not “for science”.

 

[Buzzard3]

Just tell us how you think it all happened. Do you think that your views may be ridiculed? I really have a lot of difficulty understanding why you and others are so reticent in explaining what you think happened.

I don’t even know what happened.- all we have to go by are some fossils spread out over millions-billions of years. I can’t explain how “it all happened” if I don’t know what happened, can I?

Even if I did know what happened, I wouldn’t be so stupid as to try and explain how God performed the miracle of creation.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Just tell us how you think it all happened. Do you think that your views may be ridiculed? I really have a lot of difficulty understanding why you and others are so reticent in explaining what you think happened.

I don’t even know what happened.- all we have to go by are some fossils spread out over millions-billions of years. I can’t explain how “it all happened” if I don’t know what happened, can I?

Even if I did know what happened, I wouldn’t be so stupid as to try and explain how God performed the miracle of creation.

So nothing at all. You have nothing to offer. All you are here to do is ridicule and be as negative as you can.

Yet there are libraries of information out there. Countless articles. Literally hundreds of thousands of books. Thousands upon thousands of experts in dozens of scientific fields. There is information out there ranging from that which is suitable for young children to that which you’d need a masters degree to comprehend. This is a subject that has been discussed for well over a century with some of the planets best minds working on it. It’s quite possibly the single most investigated process in science. It’s applicable to so many branches of science that it would be quicker to list the ones that it doesn’t impact than the ones it does. It’s the story of life itself. It’s how we came to be.

My grandson could give a reasonably accurate summary of evolution. And you say you have no idea.

 

[rossum]

Okay, well it sounds like what you wrote earlier is not true:
“I am Buddhist and I believe that same thing about the origin of life as Christians do: life has existed eternally.”

You asked two different questions and you got two different answers. Why do you find that a problem?

Your first question was about the origin of life. Period. The answer to that is that life has existed forever, both in Buddhism and Christianity.

Your second question was about life on earth. A different question with a different answer. Life on earth has not existed forever because the earth itself has not existed forever.

You need to pay more attention to the questions you are asking before you criticise the answers you are getting.