Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maranatha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
Is there a single fossil that can be unambiguously classified as transitional?Peace,Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, this won’t mean a thing to you, but yes, there are loads of transitional fossils: talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.

Thank goodness professors don’t have to deal with you, or there would be a lot of erasers tossed your direction. I have never once seen you acknowledge a single thing that anyone has referred us to by a professional in the field. You are as unchangeable in your views as granite. No doubt that is why you never became a scientist. Sigh. Oh well, both biology and theology have been proceeding just fine since 1859 without you, so I guess we can continue for a while longer.

StAnastasia
 
I appreciate the link. In all honesty, the use of probably this and probably that does not make me confident as to the veracity of the probablies. The coelacanth has a heart described as “primitive” but what does that mean? It’s not multi-chambered. In fact it’s just a muscle that expands and contracts to keep blood flowing. To call it primitive in no way diminishes its actual functionality which is obviously sufficient to keep this animal alive. I’m hard pressed to picture a human living and functioning at full capacity with half a lung. The underlying premise being that a body part is on its way to being something else, when, in fact, that animal better be fully functional as is, right now. Whether it lived (supposedly) a million years ago or today. It can’t be half functional.

I suggest you listen to this interview with Biologist PZ Myers. The good stuff starts at 6:58 in and Ken Miller is mentioned plus the purely political, i.e. let’s convince those Christians evolution is 100% OK, part.

youtube.com/watch?v=EczOQ1mV5aU

Either he’s lying, which I am sure he is not, or the Atheist Technocracy is taking form.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
I suggest you listen to this interview with Biologist PZ Myers. The good stuff starts at 6:58 in and Ken Miller is mentioned plus the purely political, i.e. let’s convince those Christians evolution is 100% OK, part.
youtube.com/watch?v=EczOQ1mV5aU
Either he’s lying, which I am sure he is not, or the Atheist Technocracy is taking form.
Peace,Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, while I disagree with you about the nature of scientific evidence used by biologists to support the theory of evolution, I absolutely agree with you about PZ Myers. The biologists in my university – including the agnostic and non-theistic ones – can’t stand him for his childish hostility to religion.

StAnastasia
 
buffalo said:
Nothing - I think I posted this before.

a nine master -

The Flood | Answers in Genesis
Click to expand...
nice catch, buff. but that’s a square rigger, harder to work with a short crew and less handy. we’d need a complete fore-and-aft rig, like a topsail schooner; I calculated 5 or 6 masts based on some other factors that websited didn’t consider. trust me on this.
 
StAnastasia said:
How are Sister Delio and I in conflict with “evolutionists”?
Click to expand...
I’m amazed that you can’t follow the argument. Really, I don’t know if you’re being deliberately obtuse or if you’re not able to understand it. Read Ed’s post again, then read my original, then read my reply. You’re in conflict with your fellow evolutionists – that is, the majority of them and the most prominent members of that majority. I quoted from them and you first claimed that they didn’t say what I quoted, now you’re claiming that you’re in full agreement with them (which is an obvious contradiction).
 
reggieM said:
I’m amazed that you can’t follow the argument. Really, I don’t know if you’re being deliberately obtuse or if you’re not able to understand it. Read Ed’s post again, then read my original, then read my reply. You’re in conflict with your fellow evolutionists – that is, the majority of them and the most prominent members of that majority. I quoted from them and you first claimed that they didn’t say what I quoted, now you’re claiming that you’re in full agreement with them (which is an obvious contradiction).
Click to expand...
being condescending to anyone is uncharitable at least, in the present circumstances, its really laughable.

.
 
Wirraway said:
I am. next?
Click to expand...
I visited with one of my ancestors last weekend – Lucy, who died 3.18 million years ago. The Homo Afarensis exhibit was thoughtfuly presented, and I met a Catholic nun who was contemplating quietly at Lucy’s side.

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
I visited with one of my ancestors last weekend – Lucy, who died 3.18 million years ago. The Homo Afarensis exhibit was thoughtfuly presented, and I met a Catholic nun who was contemplating quietly at Lucy’s side.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
A lot of possible responses came into my head when I read your post above. Here are the first 4…
  1. Most of us don’t know who our great-grandparents were (in my case I actually knew 1 pair out of 4). But you know that Lucy from 3.18 million years ago is in your family line. Really? 🙂
  2. The catholic nun - probably a Sister of Mercy. In the name of the creator, and the redeemer, and the santctifier… 🙂
  3. The Catholic nun - perhaps she read the exhibit title wrong, and thought she was seeing the bones of St. Lucy, and wasn’t a sister of mercy. 🙂 🙂
  4. Based on some other threads, a protestant will no doubt appear here now and claim that the nun was obviously worshiping Lucy, which is of course idolatry. 🙂 🙂
And…a serious question 😦
  1. Assuming perhaps 200,000 generations from Lucy to present, and a generous average population of 50,000 for each generation (until the last few thousand years), what’s the chance of the right mutations taking place “randomly” in order for Lucy’s DNA to turn into St. Anastasia’s DNA?
How many mutations are required?

What are they?
 
ricmat said:
A lot of possible responses came into my head when I read your post above. Here are the first 4…
  1. Most of us don’t know who our great-grandparents were (in my case I actually knew 1 pair out of 4). But you know that Lucy from 3.18 million years ago is in your family line. Really? 🙂
  2. The catholic nun - probably a Sister of Mercy. In the name of the creator, and the redeemer, and the santctifier… 🙂
  3. The Catholic nun - perhaps she read the exhibit title wrong, and thought she was seeing the bones of St. Lucy, and wasn’t a sister of mercy. 🙂 🙂
  4. Based on some other threads, a protestant will no doubt appear here now and claim that the nun was obviously worshiping Lucy, which is of course idolatry. 🙂 🙂
And…a serious question 😦
  1. Assuming perhaps 200,000 generations from Lucy to present, and a generous average population of 50,000 for each generation (until the last few thousand years), what’s the chance of the right mutations taking place “randomly” in order for Lucy’s DNA to turn into St. Anastasia’s DNA?
How many mutations are required?

What are they?
Click to expand...
Time to play The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge
 
StAnastasia said:
“Creationists” like those at AiG and the Kolbe Center have hijacked the term in exclusively opposing it to evolution. When I, as a Roman Catholic, can no longer refer to myself as a “creationist” without being looked at as if I’m a squirrel-hunting, edentulate, hillbilly with a hick accent, then I would say this lovely, ancient term has been hijacked.:eek: I am a creationist who sees God working through the dynamic processes of cosmological, physical, chemical, nebular, stellar, planetary, geological, biological, and neural evolution.👍

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
I’m a Roman Catholic woman who is NOT a creationist! I don’t see as you do “God working through the dynamic processes of cosmological, physical, chemical, nebular, stellar, planetary, geological, biological, and neural evolution.” Fortunately, I was taught by Roman Catholic Theologians that I’m not a CREATIONIST! Furthermore, I wouldn’t reduce God to data (information).😃
All rights reserved:D
 
Creationist is a political label here, nothing more. I recommend reading Finding Design In Nature by Cardinal Schoenborn.

Peace,
Ed
 
wildleafblower said:
I’m a Roman Catholic woman who is NOT a creationist!** I don’t see as you do “God working through the dynamic processes of cosmological, physical, chemical, nebular, stellar, planetary, geological, biological, and neural evolution.**” Fortunately, I was taught by Roman Catholic Theologians that I’m not a CREATIONIST!
Click to expand...
WLB - you have me confused with your post above. Isn’t the part above that I bolded essentially the “theistic evolution” position (where I thought you were situated)? I’m not trying to argue here, just trying to understand where you’re at… 🙂
 
ricmat said:
WLB - you have me confused with your post above. Isn’t the part above that I bolded essentially the “theistic evolution” position (where I thought you were situated)? I’m not trying to argue here, just trying to understand where you’re at… 🙂
Click to expand...
I wondered that also. I think there was a mistake there.

WLB - I pledged to try to make your New Year a happy one so I won’t post an argument. But I did look at this list …
“God working through the dynamic processes of cosmological, physical, chemical, nebular, stellar, planetary, geological, biological, and neural evolution.”
Click to expand...
I’m glad you included “chemical evolution” since most of your fellow-Darwinists do not accept that concept (for rhetorical reasons?).

But what is missing is “psychological” evolution.
 
It took God only six days (however that is conceived) to create the world. This thread has been going since October - into its fourth month.::rolleyes:
 
wildleafblower said:
I’m a Roman Catholic woman who is NOT a creationist! I don’t see as you do “God working through the dynamic processes of cosmological, physical, chemical, nebular, stellar, planetary, geological, biological, and neural evolution.” Fortunately, I was taught by Roman Catholic Theologians that I’m not a CREATIONIST! Furthermore, I wouldn’t reduce God to data (information).😃
All rights reserved:D
Click to expand...
All Catholics should be creationists. If you believe God created the world, you are a creationist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top