Evolution Must Go
#31
(11-25-2012, 09:46 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-24-2012, 08:05 PM)Hanno Wrote: Strictly for the sake of argument, I am granting that the current & best DNA modeling is more or less decent.  Assuming it is, how does one accept the scientific consensus on evolution with Pius XII's insistence that a Catholic must believe in a 2-person evolutionary bottleneck?

IF it could actually be proven, and was more than just a hypothesis, then the faith would necessarily need to be modified.  Gasp, shock, horror, the earth actually does revolve around the sun, for example.

Melkite, seriously....

Not that old canard again.
Reply
#32
(11-25-2012, 09:53 AM)Melkite Wrote: False dichotomy.  It's not either 'scientific law' or 'shot in the dark philosophical guess.'  What you described is a hypothesis.  It isn't proven, but it is the best guess of what is observed.

The problem is that secularists don't portray evolution as a hypothesis; they portray it as scientific fact, which could not be farther from the truth.

Micro-evolution I have seen with my own eyes in biology lab courses. Macro-evolution has never been witnessed anywhere by anyone.

The best guess of what has been observed is that "God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and everything that creeps on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good."

(11-25-2012, 09:30 AM)Melkite Wrote: I always find it interesting that opponents of evolution try to make science fit in with their theology, rather than the other way around.  If our faith is true, then science is nothing to be afraid of.  If you reject science because you may have to tweak a non-essential component of the faith in order to justify the two, then you don't have faith, you have fear-based fundamentalism.

No, we simply believe in accurate science, which carefully searches for the Truth, rather than jumping on the bandwagon with the latest, entirely unproven, fad. The problem is not so much that macro-evolution contradicts the authentic interpretation of Genesis, rather that it is bad science. If it were solid science founded on Truth, then it would also necessarily fit in with the infallible teachings of the one true Faith.
Reply
#33
you cannot mathematically/physics prove the earth revolves around the sun or visa versa. Just saying

Nor can it be shown from science that God used evolution. I am just as intelligent to hold that God created everything according to its kind just as we see it. Further --The evolutionists never seem to want to look at any other life than animal life....well how did we go from protien soup to fruit trees and fruit bats? Vegatative life where did it come from...according to evolution both plants AND animals came from the same primordial stew! How the ham is that even possible....oh thats right billions and billions and billlions and billlions...................................................of years ago :eyeroll:
Reply
#34
(11-25-2012, 12:32 PM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: you cannot mathematically/physics prove the earth revolves around the sun or visa versa. Just saying

No of course not.  You can't prove anything to someone who obstinately refuses to believe it.
Reply
#35
(11-25-2012, 12:22 PM)Servus Immaculatae Wrote: The problem is that secularists don't portray evolution as a hypothesis; they portray it as scientific fact, which could not be farther from the truth.

Micro-evolution I have seen with my own eyes in biology lab courses. Macro-evolution has never been witnessed anywhere by anyone.

The best guess of what has been observed is that "God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and everything that creeps on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good."

Well, that's because it's not a hypothesis, it's a theory.  A theory in science is when there is enough evidence that you can assume it is true.  Genetics prove it, like a foot print of evolution, in much the same way that we know from lingusitic footprints that all Indo-European languages are related and come from one source, even though many of them today have lost their mutual intelligibility - their ability to mate with eachother, in a sense.

Macro-evolution has never been witnessed by anyone because no one lives long enough to watch it take place.  I'm not sure how you can convince yourself that evolution isn't true, at least in some form, merely because your lifespan isn't sufficient enough to watch the entire process take place.  Do you likewise not believe that stars form, burn and eventually supernova because you don't live the billions of years to see the process?

Your quote is the best guess for a theist.  But, do you see how vague it is?  All it does is claim that God made everything.  It doesn't proclaim how he made them, in which order or in which fashion.


Quote:No, we simply believe in accurate science, which carefully searches for the Truth, rather than jumping on the bandwagon with the latest, entirely unproven, fad. The problem is not so much that macro-evolution contradicts the authentic interpretation of Genesis, rather that it is bad science. If it were solid science founded on Truth, then it would also necessarily fit in with the infallible teachings of the one true Faith.

See, you are showing how you are putting the cart before the horse.  Science is only founded on truth if it confirms your faith?  But you can't scientifically prove that the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church are the one true Faith.  You subjectively (and by subjectively, I don't necessarily mean you are wrong) believe it to be true, so you hold everything else up to that and try to force it into a box it might not be able to fit into.  Despite Aragon's erroneous claim of a canard (it's funny, anything contradictory to Catholicism is a canard - no matter if it's actual historic or logical fact), the Church de facto infallibly taught that the sun revolves around the earth, and yet we now know that to be not true.  So, what happens if, for the sake of argument, macro-evolution is proven true?  Do you lose your faith, or do you close your eyes and merely say it's bad science because it doesn't confirm your beliefs that you held ignorant of fact?
Reply
#36
(11-25-2012, 01:54 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 12:32 PM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: you cannot mathematically/physics prove the earth revolves around the sun or visa versa. Just saying

No of course not.  You can't prove anything to someone who obstinately refuses to believe it.
cop out
Reply
#37
(11-25-2012, 02:58 PM)Melkite Wrote: Well, that's because it's not a hypothesis, it's a theory. 

But you just said it was an hypothesis! Now it's suddenly a theory?

(11-25-2012, 02:58 PM)Melkite Wrote: Genetics prove it, like a foot print of evolution, in much the same way that we know from lingusitic footprints that all Indo-European languages are related and come from one source, even though many of them today have lost their mutual intelligibility - their ability to mate with eachother, in a sense.

I discussed the lack of "evidence" from genetics in a previous post. Modern genetics offers nothing more towards evolutionary biology than a few pieces of circumstantial evidence, which, when following the lex parsimoniae do not in any way point to a Darwinian-style macro-evolution. No scientific field has anything more to offer to the "theory" of evolution than outlandish speculation.

(11-25-2012, 02:58 PM)Melkite Wrote: Your quote is the best guess for a theist.  But, do you see how vague it is?  All it does is claim that God made everything.  It doesn't proclaim how he made them, in which order or in which fashion.

My quote is not a guess. It is direct from Sacred Scripture. It is the Word of God: "The grass is withered, and the flower is fallen: but the word of our Lord endures for ever."

And everyone is a theist, whether they realize it yet or not. At the moment of death all will know the Truth, whether they have accepted or rejected it.

(11-25-2012, 02:58 PM)Melkite Wrote: See, you are showing how you are putting the cart before the horse.  Science is only founded on truth if it confirms your faith?  But you can't scientifically prove that the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church are the one true Faith.  You subjectively (and by subjectively, I don't necessarily mean you are wrong) believe it to be true, so you hold everything else up to that and try to force it into a box it might not be able to fit into.  Despite Aragon's erroneous claim of a canard (it's funny, anything contradictory to Catholicism is a canard - no matter if it's actual historic or logical fact), the Church de facto infallibly taught that the sun revolves around the earth, and yet we now know that to be not true.  So, what happens if, for the sake of argument, macro-evolution is proven true?  Do you lose your faith, or do you close your eyes and merely say it's bad science because it doesn't confirm your beliefs that you held ignorant of fact?

Jesus Christ is Truth. "Jesus said to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn xiv 6). Our Lord established one holy Catholic Church, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Mt xvi 18-19). Therefore Truth and the Catholic Faith are mutually inclusive; they can never be in contradiction.

HH Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus Wrote:[W]e have to contend against those who, making an evil use of physical science, minutely scrutinize the Sacred Book in order to detect the writers in a mistake, and to take occasion to vilify its contents. Attacks of this kind, bearing as they do on matters of sensible experience, are peculiarly dangerous to the masses....There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, "not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known.'' If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so."

Finally, I say macro-evolution is bad science because it imprudently jumps to rash conclusions without taking the care to follow the stringent scientific methods required in all other fields.
Reply
#38
(11-25-2012, 04:12 PM)Servus Immaculatae Wrote: But you just said it was an hypothesis! Now it's suddenly a theory?

No, when I was speaking of hypotheses earlier, I was talking about the idea that genes show humans starting off as a species with 1200 individuals.  That is a hypothesis, not strong enough to be a theory, at least with the evidence currently available.

Quote:My quote is not a guess. It is direct from Sacred Scripture. It is the Word of God: "The grass is withered, and the flower is fallen: but the word of our Lord endures for ever."

What authority does Scripture command to those who do not believe it?  For the believer, it's not as if Scripture has irrefutably proven itself to be true, but rather, we relinquish our sovereignty of intellect and have faith that it is true.  But that faith is certainly not a proof of its veracity.

Quote:Jesus Christ is Truth. "Jesus said to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn xiv 6). Our Lord established one holy Catholic Church, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Mt xvi 18-19). Therefore Truth and the Catholic Faith are mutually inclusive; they can never be in contradiction.

What does that prove to anyone who doesn't share our faith?  There is nothing empirical about Scripture.  I can't prove to someone who does not subscribe to Christianity that our Scriptures are true.  I can prove that tigers, lions and panthers are related species to someone who otherwise does not believe it.  See the difference?  Your entire argument, though I personally accept the means, is one in which you have to assume the Scriptures are infallible, without offering any proof that they are.  It's a completely unconvincing argument to those that don't accept the infallibility of Scripture at the inception of the argument.  It's like if I were to try to convince you a given disease were truly a disease and the only proof I offer is the say-so of the CDC, but you don't accept the CDC has the authority to make such claims.
Reply
#39
(11-25-2012, 03:22 PM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 01:54 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 12:32 PM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: you cannot mathematically/physics prove the earth revolves around the sun or visa versa. Just saying

No of course not.  You can't prove anything to someone who obstinately refuses to believe it.
cop out

We've been through this before.  If you couldn't mathematically/physically prove that the Earth orbits the sun, then the satellites that we have sent out to the outer solar system, slingshotting around other planets on their way, wouldn't work exactly as it did as it was based on that very same math.  If the math was wrong, the satellites would not have gone on the very paths they were projected to take.  It's not a copout, it's a "we're not rehashing the same old stuff" because you've already shown that it doesn't matter what the math/physics show, you refuse to believe it every time.

Fundamentalists are generally incapable of rationally dealing with the facts reality presents them.  They have to perpetuate a fantasy land where science doesn't exist because they can't stop for a minute to think of how science has challenged their faith and a way to justify the two, so their intellect, rather than accepting the challenge, just shuts down.
Reply
#40
(11-25-2012, 09:22 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-23-2012, 07:04 PM)Hanno Wrote: 2.  The same evidence claims the paternal ancestor of all humanity and the maternal ancestor of all humanity lived thousands of years apart.  "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-Chromosomal Adam" were not a couple, which is (again) another assertion that the human population was seeded from a broader group (however small) than just a single pair at a single point in time.

This shouldn't surprise you.  The common male ancestor of all humans is Noah, not Adam.

Sure, if you believe in a literal flood.  Most theistic evolutionists don't believe that happened (at least, in my experience they don't), but they must believe in a literal Adam.

If you want to substitute Noah for Adam, that's fine, but all your work is still ahead of you.  Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam are thousands of years apart, so they couldn't stand in any better for Noah and his wife than they could for Adam & Eve.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)