A
Aloysium
Guest
It’s obvious to me that it is not. Go figure.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
P
PhiriTalk
Guest
Evolution still happens regardless of what your opinion of it is though. That’s the beauty of it.
P
PhiriTalk
Guest
It’s like anthropogenic climate change. I think there’s too much time and effort convincing people who don’t think that’s its real and not enough of actually addressing it, cause it exist whether anyone thinks it does or not.
A
Aloysium
Guest
You might as well be telling me that the earth is flat regardless of what I think.
But, again the definition of evolution you provided is not the scientific theory of evolution, but rather describes the field of genetics.
Please be aware that no one hear has disputed the fact that change occurs in successive generations. This is the result of preprogrammed capacities given to kinds of organisms when they were first created. There is also the effect of random mutation, which degrades the information within the genome and results in devolution. Natural selection is another aspect of death in this world, as opposed to a creative force leading to diversity. If things don’t fit, they die. Every creature is a participant in its environment, contributing to and deriving benefit from it. These change together, demonstrating the artistry and creativity by which everything is brought into existence.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Tell me about it.
P
PhiriTalk
Guest
The earth isn’t flat though. That’s a non-sequitur.
Evolution only deals with generic change over successive generations. That’s literally it. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
It sounds like you accept evolution, you’re just conflating hypotheses about the origin of life with the theory of evolution.
Evolution only deals with generic change over successive generations. That’s literally it. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
It sounds like you accept evolution, you’re just conflating hypotheses about the origin of life with the theory of evolution.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
A conspiracy. The other non-answer. I suggest you look into Bioinformatics. After sequencing the human genome, scientists realized they had “a book they couldn’t read.” So, they are literally taking the genome apart and are trying to figure out what molecular switches, all the molecular switches, do. That’s reality. Evolution provides no guidance.
P
PhiriTalk
Guest
Evolution doesn’t claim to have any guidance in that area though. All evolution explains is how genetic characteristics are passed on over generations. That’s it. It has nothing to do with which genes are which or what the origin of life is.
Evolution isn’t wrong just because it doesn’t explain everything about everything.
Evolution isn’t wrong just because it doesn’t explain everything about everything.
E
edwest211
Guest
Then what is it good for? As far as I can tell, here its only purpose is to promote atheism. Evolution did everything. God? Who? The science only answer is incomplete. The Church recognizes that.
Last edited:
P
PhiriTalk
Guest
The Catholic Church accepts evolution though. I’m a Catholic and I fully accept the theory of evolution.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, nor does it claim to be.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, nor does it claim to be.
E
edwest211
Guest
No it doesn’t. Not the version being promoted here. The old saw about ‘evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life’ is baloney. You should know that. Back to Church teaching.
“In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”
Communion and Stewardship, part 64.
The atheist only, science only explanation is not compatible with Church teaching.
“In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”
Communion and Stewardship, part 64.
The atheist only, science only explanation is not compatible with Church teaching.
P
PhiriTalk
Guest
Evolution literally doesn’t have anything to do with the origin of life though. #facepalm
Why is science denial so prevalent on this website?
God created the universe and the laws of physics. No one gets to tell God how it is, we just get to observe the way God made it.
Rejecting science is rejecting God.
Why is science denial so prevalent on this website?
God created the universe and the laws of physics. No one gets to tell God how it is, we just get to observe the way God made it.
Rejecting science is rejecting God.
E
edwest211
Guest
I accept everything the Church actually teaches about science, but not what’s being promoted here.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Straw man. Nobody has claimed in this forum that evolution denies God. Do not play fast and loose with the facts.
E
edwest211
Guest
Have you become a deist?
B
Bradskii
Guest
Is the statement unclear? Does it indicate belief or unbelief? Is it a statement of faith? Are you confused about its meaning? Do I need to take any position at all on gods, God or Chritianity to be able to point out that your claim that evolution denies God is abject nonsense?
There is no doubt you are confused about this position. So I’ll make it clear.
Evolution has nothing to say about the existence or non existence of deities. Your’s included. It does, however, specifically contradict your personal fundamentalist beliefs. So you are not defending Catholicism. You are not even defending Christianty. You are defending your own beliefs. Please don’t insult my intelligence, or those of the vast majority of Catholics posting on this thread, by insinuating otherwise.
Are we clear?
Crystal, I would hope.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
But hey, please don’t stop posting on my behalf.
All together: This little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine. This little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine…
All together: This little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine. This little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine…
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
First off it is 10x10^123 - start writing zeroes now. We will time you.
The very first sentence of this section is:
How special was the big bang? (perhaps the folks at SZ or Quora missed it)
Then:
This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.
He is looking at the probabilities of ending up with our universe if done randomly. The search space is so huge the Creator;s aim had to be very precise.
He goes on to say:
“The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate time. This principle was used very effectively by Brandon Carter and Robert Dicke to resolve an issue that had puzzled physicists for a good many years. The issue concerned various striking numerical relations that are observed to hold between the physical constants (the gravitational constant, the mass of the proton, the age of the universe, etc.). A puzzling aspect of this was that some of the relations hold only at the present epoch in the earth’s history, so we appear, coincidentally, to be living at a very special time (give or take a few million years!). This was later explained, by Carter and Dicke, by the fact that this epoch coincided with the lifetime of what are called main-sequence stars, such as the sun. At any other epoch, so the argument ran, there would be no intelligent life around in order to measure the physical constants in question — so the coincidence had to hold, simply because there would be intelligent life around only at the particular time that the coincidence did hold!”
The very first sentence of this section is:
How special was the big bang? (perhaps the folks at SZ or Quora missed it)
Then:
This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.
He is looking at the probabilities of ending up with our universe if done randomly. The search space is so huge the Creator;s aim had to be very precise.
He goes on to say:
“The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate time. This principle was used very effectively by Brandon Carter and Robert Dicke to resolve an issue that had puzzled physicists for a good many years. The issue concerned various striking numerical relations that are observed to hold between the physical constants (the gravitational constant, the mass of the proton, the age of the universe, etc.). A puzzling aspect of this was that some of the relations hold only at the present epoch in the earth’s history, so we appear, coincidentally, to be living at a very special time (give or take a few million years!). This was later explained, by Carter and Dicke, by the fact that this epoch coincided with the lifetime of what are called main-sequence stars, such as the sun. At any other epoch, so the argument ran, there would be no intelligent life around in order to measure the physical constants in question — so the coincidence had to hold, simply because there would be intelligent life around only at the particular time that the coincidence did hold!”
B
buffalo
Guest
I am back with more conspiracy links.
A new conspiracy was hatched 3 years ago by the Royal Society.
New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives
The audios can be found here.The talks by Noble and Shapiro are very interesting.
These can serve as a primer to how they are trying to deal with the new findings.
B
buffalo
Guest
Rejecting properly reasoned and properly investigated science is rejecting God. Also important to remember, God is under no obligation to let us see everything. We are limited to what we can see and ascertain about His creation.
- Status