Evolution
#31
(07-01-2012, 02:45 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: Gerard is doing the work, so no need for me to get into the nitty gritty. Not that it is in the realm of my competence anyway.

But, all I have to add is quite simple. I have noticed that since Darwin, man has been convinced he is an animal. And we have seen a turning away from God and on the whole, we have witnessed a de-evolution of culture, art, ideas, etc.

Eugenics, total war, this talk of useless eaters. All very scientific, but not very Christian.

Concurred Adam. It is good justification for those that wish to remain living carnally.

My ex-gf got a childrens library book on evolution and gave it to our 7 yr old daughter who asked what it is all about - I told her that it is a theory that we were once apes that changed to human form, she laughed and said "that is silly". The child's response completely disarmed the ex, was pure gold.

I think evolution gained alot of ground based on the fraudulent "fossils" such as Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, etc. By the time they were revealed to be hoaxes the momentum was very great. Interestingly many people I know think these fossils are genuine until told otherwise. John Vennari of CFN has a good audiocd on evolution and the fraud involved in the movement.
Reply
#32
Free mp3 download or buy a disk of Charled Coulombe and William Biersach's "Fireside Chat" on the subject 

http://www.tumblarhouse.com/audio.php#Evolution

(Check out the books too!  The good people at Tumblar need to eat as well. )
Reply
#33
cheers Gerard, was going to ask for some further recommended materials on the subject.

When I have checked out books on Amazon that refute evolution the atheist reviewers are very hostile hissing and spitting venom, in fact most times they haven't appeared to have read the book. The theory is their only chance to justify their belief.
Reply
#34
Quick audio piece from Fr Ripperger on the superstition of evolution from a thomist perspective:

http://www.sensustraditionis.org/webaudi...lution.mp3
Reply
#35
Of course they spew venom at the criticism of evolution , it's the false basis they use to undermine what the Bible says and  an "evolving" person has an "evolving" religion. A false scientific justification for changing faith and morals.
Reply
#36
An excellent book that tackles evolution from a Patristic perspective is the updated and revised edition of the late Russian Orthodox priest Father Seraphim Rose's "Genesis, Creation and Early Man". Like most Orthodox authors he takes some jabs at Catholicism  but that is to be expected. If you can get past that it's quite good. It's much better than a lot of Protestant books since many Protestants have no real use for the various Church Fathers. There is even a whole chapter condemning Teilhard De Chardin and his ideas. Phillip E. Johnson writes the Intro or the preface I think. He (Father Seraphim) breaks down each section from the early chapters of Genesis and explains them by using various quotes from Church Fathers. Later chapters go into some of the scientific stuff but at heart it is a book that is trying to defend the traditional Patristic view of Creation against theistic evolutionists and plain old evolutionist atheists with appeals to Scripture and the writings of various Fathers.
Reply
#37
Quote:Breeding is just that. Breeding. It's not evolution, you can't breed a kind of dog into a fish.

Evolution simply is a population's gene pool changing over time. You keep mentioning "phylum to phylum" changes, etc., but the term "phylum" is just a convenient construct to group organisms based on similarities. If you were an archaeologist working in the future and studied the remains of a chihuahua and that of a German shepherd in the fossil record, you would conclude that they were very different creatures, at least morphologically different enough to be considered "distinct." Yet, we know that they both are related and evolved from a common ancestor, the grey wolf, which could be verified by careful anatomical analysis or DNA sequencing. Yet, those against evolution would state that there is no way a big grey wolf could evolve into a small chihuahua.

Evolution in which nature selects for traits (natural selection) works in the same way as breeding, which simply is artificial selection. In both cases, evolution and breeding, the gene pool changes due to an external selective pressure, either nature or humans selecting which type of dog should survive and propagate.

A "phylum to phylum" change would take longer than, say, a "species to species" change. But if a chihuahua population could arise from a gray wolf population via breeding, i.e., a "species to species" change, then there is nothing stopping the chihuahua population from diverting further and further from the wolf population. Just because we've never observed a "dog [turning] into a fish," doesn't mean a "phylum to phylum" change is impossible. After all, such processes take a much longer time, millions of years. We can already see evolution working on a small time scale, with "breed to breed" and "species to species" population changes. The domestication of the present lineage of dogs from grey wolves began about 15,000 years ago, just to give you an idea of the amount of time it takes for a population's morphology to change significantly. So stating that we've never observed a "dog [turning] into a fish" does not refute evolution.
Reply
#38
(07-03-2012, 07:13 PM)Axona Wrote:
Quote:Breeding is just that. Breeding. It's not evolution, you can't breed a kind of dog into a fish.

Evolution simply is a population's gene pool changing over time. You keep mentioning "phylum to phylum" changes, etc., but the term "phylum" is just a convenient construct to group organisms based on similarities. If you were an archaeologist working in the future and studied the remains of a chihuahua and that of a German shepherd in the fossil record, you would conclude that they were very different creatures, at least morphologically different enough to be considered "distinct." Yet, we know that they both are related and evolved from a common ancestor, the grey wolf, which could be verified by careful anatomical analysis or DNA sequencing. Yet, those against evolution would state that there is no way a big grey wolf could evolve into a small chihuahua.

Evolution in which nature selects for traits (natural selection) works in the same way as breeding, which simply is artificial selection. In both cases, evolution and breeding, the gene pool changes due to an external selective pressure, either nature or humans selecting which type of dog should survive and propagate.

A "phylum to phylum" change would take longer than, say, a "species to species" change. But if a chihuahua population could arise from a gray wolf population via breeding, i.e., a "species to species" change, then there is nothing stopping the chihuahua population from diverting further and further from the wolf population. Just because we've never observed a "dog [turning] into a fish," doesn't mean a "phylum to phylum" change is impossible. After all, such processes take a much longer time, millions of years. We can already see evolution working on a small time scale, with "breed to breed" and "species to species" population changes. The domestication of the present lineage of dogs from grey wolves began about 15,000 years ago, just to give you an idea of the amount of time it takes for a population's morphology to change significantly. So stating that we've never observed a "dog [turning] into a fish" does not refute evolution.

So, in other words, all it takes is billions and billions of years.  That worked on me as a kids when Carl Sagan, along with all my teachers, were constantly drilling it into my head.  After I got out of college I looked at both sides of the debate and I came to the realization that the theory of evolution is bunk. 

Segan was employed as the lead pitchman to indoctrinate my generation into this atheistic wet dream.  Here's Carl at his best...

Reply
#39
(06-28-2012, 10:16 PM)WesternWarrior Wrote: One more thing if the Oceans are rising and the coasts are going to be underwater, why did Al Gore by a mansion on the California coast?

If you had the money, and liked the ocean and beautiful scenery, why wouldn't you buy a mansion on the California coast?

Al Gore is 64 0r 65; when you get to be that age, you really and truly realize that you are not going to live forever.  So what if your mansion falls into the ocean one night while you're sleeping?   Not a bad way to go, if you ask me.  It's more likely, though, that if his property is threatened, he'll just go somewhere else until the danger is over.  He may have a helicopter on a helipad there for quick escapes.  Many wealthy people have them.  And if Gore could never go back to that property, he wouldn't be homeless.  


Lew Rockwell?  You have got to be kidding.   :LOL:

Reply
#40
(07-03-2012, 07:13 PM)Axona Wrote:
Quote:Breeding is just that. Breeding. It's not evolution, you can't breed a kind of dog into a fish.

Evolution simply is a population's gene pool changing over time. You keep mentioning "phylum to phylum" changes, etc., but the term "phylum" is just a convenient construct to group organisms based on similarities. If you were an archaeologist working in the future and studied the remains of a chihuahua and that of a German shepherd in the fossil record, you would conclude that they were very different creatures, at least morphologically different enough to be considered "distinct." Yet, we know that they both are related and evolved from a common ancestor, the grey wolf, which could be verified by careful anatomical analysis or DNA sequencing. Yet, those against evolution would state that there is no way a big grey wolf could evolve into a small chihuahua.

Evolution in which nature selects for traits (natural selection) works in the same way as breeding, which simply is artificial selection. In both cases, evolution and breeding, the gene pool changes due to an external selective pressure, either nature or humans selecting which type of dog should survive and propagate.

A "phylum to phylum" change would take longer than, say, a "species to species" change. But if a chihuahua population could arise from a gray wolf population via breeding, i.e., a "species to species" change, then there is nothing stopping the chihuahua population from diverting further and further from the wolf population. Just because we've never observed a "dog [turning] into a fish," doesn't mean a "phylum to phylum" change is impossible. After all, such processes take a much longer time, millions of years. We can already see evolution working on a small time scale, with "breed to breed" and "species to species" population changes. The domestication of the present lineage of dogs from grey wolves began about 15,000 years ago, just to give you an idea of the amount of time it takes for a population's morphology to change significantly. So stating that we've never observed a "dog [turning] into a fish" does not refute evolution.

Ok...so there is nothing "simple" about the the theorized mutatgenic changes in genes and DNA  that cause radical physiological changes over time...lots n lots n lots of time.Physiological changes so radical in fact that it produces contained breeding populations that are biologically constrained from having any intercourse with new "species" that may have had a common ancestor.As discussed earlier,the negative impact of gene mutation is well recorded.The suggestion (that is all it is) that mutation has been the driving force in the creation of new life,in all its perfection and diversity is simply unbelievable,knowing what do about mutations today.
Natural selection,as a term is a non Sequitor in terms  of modern interpretation.There is this implied force of creation in the term that is nothing of the sort.In short,all it means,all it refers to is the fact that organisms have bred.This of course means that only traits already in existence get passed along.There is no new information created by "natural selection".

To suggest that we "know" creatures evolved from one form is arrogance in the extreme.There is zero empirical evidence for this.Lots of artists renderings and theories but that is it.
All Canids are from the same family.They are biologically compatible,even if man made breeding has made this impossible due to size differentiation.No evolution has occurred.Adaption and mans influence have resulted in the various "breeds".
Incidentally,there is nothing artificial about natural selection.This is oxymoronic.Either its natural or it ain't.

Once again you illustrate your confusion with regard the meaning of the term evolution.Breeding and adaption within a species is not evolution.Not even close.

Dog Breeds have actually been created very quickly.We don't need 15000 years.Not even close.Some working dog breeds such as German Shepherd or Labrador Retriever were established in the last few hundred years.

You make the following statement :
"Just because we've never observed a "dog [turning] into a fish," doesn't mean a "phylum to phylum" change is impossible"

Well,if something is unobservable it places itself outside the boundaries of modern science and enters the realm of wishful thinking.
And in fact we don't even need to observe such changes to disprove them.Modern molecular biology and genetics tells us that DNA is essentially a code,per-ordained that the genes and various biological systems simply "translate". Michael Behe has written an excellent book on the natural limits of genetic interpretation of DNA.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)