Evolution Must Go
#51
(11-25-2012, 06:38 PM)Axona Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 06:33 PM)MRose Wrote: In response to the bolded, that is a non sequiturbecause the Church has never disavowed that teaching.

So are you saying that the sun really revolves around the earth. . .? Or that the Church still teaches this?
nterviewer: "So, Dr. Sungenis, you believe that the sun goes around the earth, is that correct?"

Sungenis: "Yes, and so do a lot of other people."

Interviewer: "Like who?"

Sungenis: "Well, they won't come right out and admit it, but they do hold that geocentrism is just as valid a model of cosmology as heliocentrism."

Interviewer: "And who are these people?"

Sungenis: "Oh, people like Albert Einstein, Ernst Mach, Julian Barbour, Bruno Bertotti...."

Interviewer: What is dangerous and misleading about the theory of heliocentrism?

what is “dangerous” about heliocentrism, nothing, per se. God could have created the universe with the earth rotating and revolving if He wanted to, and if He did we would honor that system. Heliocentrism becomes “dangerous” if it is being propped up as the true system when, in fact, it is a false system. False information leads to false ideas, and false ideas lead to illicit and immoral actions – thus the state of the world today. It just so happens that heliocentrism has been employed since the time of Galileo as proof that the Church makes mistakes in doctrine and, since that is the case, it must then be made subservient to political governments and modern academia. Prior to Galileo, the Church was in full command of the world; and governments and academia were subservient to her.  .....................The fact remains that, except for the lifting of Copernicus and Galileo from the 1835 Index (which was made under false information), the 1616 and 1633 condemnation and trial against Galileo and heliocentrism has never been officially overturned or rescinded, in any manner, and thus remains in force to this very day.

Interviewer: many people criticize geocentrism as ridiculous. Why do you think that is?

R. Sungenis: Because if you have been taught since early childhood, day in and day out, that the earth rotates on an axis and revolves around the sun, you would naturally think it a ridiculous idea if someone told you the opposite. We assume, without question, that the scientists who told us the earth rotates and revolves are correct. As such, one would be foolish not to think geocentrism was ridiculous. I completely sympathize with their predicament. One cannot even begin to see the other side of the story until he is given the right information to make an intelligent decision...............................Traditionally, the Church has always held to geocentrism and creation. The Church Fathers were in unanimous consent on both, as were the medieval theologians, even in the face of the Greek philosophers and Indian astronomers who were touting both evolution and heliocentrism. The Catechism of the Council of Trent issued under Pope Pius V in 1566 endorsed geocentrism in four separate places. The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated, in an infallible dogma, that creation, not evolution, was the Church’s belief (“God…by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time, created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human” Denz. 428), as did Vatican Council 1 in 1870 (“If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been created by God from nothing…let him be anathema” Denz. 1805), eleven years after Darwin published his famous Origin of Species touting evolution. Genesis is very clear, at least if read at face value (which is the traditional way of reading it), that the earth was made first and everything in the universe was built around it. The modern Big Bang theory says the opposite, that is, an explosion came first and the earth appeared by chance about 8 billion years later. Both cannot be right

   
Reply
#52
(11-25-2012, 07:59 PM)Hanno Wrote: Sorry, but Noah isn't the solution.  Read the OP again!  Noah's sons and their wives constitute a bottleneck of 6.  The point of the OP was that DNA modelling argues for a bottleneck of 1,200 at minimum.  You can change the problem from Adam to Noah, but you're still avoiding the question.  How do you reconcile your bottleneck of 6 with the data that says it was 1,200?

Anyway, you don't have to believe in the flood.  The flood is not de fide.  Original Sin is.  Pius XII says that as Catholics we must believe in a bottleneck of 2 with Adam & Eve.  The evolutionary history contradicts this.  How do explain the contradiction?

The 1200 minimum thing is something I haven't read much into.  The last I have read about this topic, the majority of scientists were still saying that there was one common male and one common female ancestor.  Is this no longer the majority opinion in science?

If the evidence shows a bottleneck of a minimum of 1200, is there any reason in that evidence that that had to be the very beginning of the human species?  If so, perhaps the human species existed at a brute animal before God ensouled Adam?  Perhaps y-chromosomal Adam is Adam, and mitochondrial Eve was just a human animal.  That's assuming that the 1200 bears out scientifically as more than a hypothesis.

If it could be proven that the beginning of humanity consisted of 1200, and I mean truly proven, no scientific way out of it, it was a verifiable, set-in-stone fact, I would revise my faith to exclude original sin, at least, as having been handed down from one man.  Would you be able to do that?  Could you allow your faith to be led by reason, or would you ignore demonstrable fact in order to preserve a faith based on a falsehood?

I believe there was a literal flood.  I don't necessarily believe it was worldwide because the evidence isn't there to support it.  I think of Genesis as being our version of primal religion.  All of the stories in Genesis have so many typological elements pointing to Christ, that it is hard for me to believe that the stories are more historic fact than pre-emptive catechism.  The flood is clearly that - a type of baptism and a catechesis on baptism.  But I do believe there was an actual event that the story is based on, and I do believe something happened that wiped out all of humanity except for one man and a few women.
Reply
#53
(11-25-2012, 08:24 PM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: nterviewer: "So, Dr. Sungenis, you believe that the sun goes around the earth, is that correct?"

Sungenis: "Yes, and so do a lot of other people."

Interviewer: "Like who?"

Sungenis: "Well, they won't come right out and admit it, but they do hold that geocentrism is just as valid a model of cosmology as heliocentrism."

Interviewer: "And who are these people?"

Sungenis: "Oh, people like Albert Einstein, Ernst Mach, Julian Barbour, Bruno Bertotti...."

Interviewer: What is dangerous and misleading about the theory of heliocentrism?

what is “dangerous” about heliocentrism, nothing, per se. God could have created the universe with the earth rotating and revolving if He wanted to, and if He did we would honor that system. Heliocentrism becomes “dangerous” if it is being propped up as the true system when, in fact, it is a false system. False information leads to false ideas, and false ideas lead to illicit and immoral actions – thus the state of the world today. It just so happens that heliocentrism has been employed since the time of Galileo as proof that the Church makes mistakes in doctrine and, since that is the case, it must then be made subservient to political governments and modern academia. Prior to Galileo, the Church was in full command of the world; and governments and academia were subservient to her.  .....................The fact remains that, except for the lifting of Copernicus and Galileo from the 1835 Index (which was made under false information), the 1616 and 1633 condemnation and trial against Galileo and heliocentrism has never been officially overturned or rescinded, in any manner, and thus remains in force to this very day.

Interviewer: many people criticize geocentrism as ridiculous. Why do you think that is?

R. Sungenis: Because if you have been taught since early childhood, day in and day out, that the earth rotates on an axis and revolves around the sun, you would naturally think it a ridiculous idea if someone told you the opposite. We assume, without question, that the scientists who told us the earth rotates and revolves are correct. As such, one would be foolish not to think geocentrism was ridiculous. I completely sympathize with their predicament. One cannot even begin to see the other side of the story until he is given the right information to make an intelligent decision...............................Traditionally, the Church has always held to geocentrism and creation. The Church Fathers were in unanimous consent on both, as were the medieval theologians, even in the face of the Greek philosophers and Indian astronomers who were touting both evolution and heliocentrism. The Catechism of the Council of Trent issued under Pope Pius V in 1566 endorsed geocentrism in four separate places. The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated, in an infallible dogma, that creation, not evolution, was the Church’s belief (“God…by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time, created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human” Denz. 428), as did Vatican Council 1 in 1870 (“If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been created by God from nothing…let him be anathema” Denz. 1805), eleven years after Darwin published his famous Origin of Species touting evolution. Genesis is very clear, at least if read at face value (which is the traditional way of reading it), that the earth was made first and everything in the universe was built around it. The modern Big Bang theory says the opposite, that is, an explosion came first and the earth appeared by chance about 8 billion years later. Both cannot be right.

Modern geocentrists accept that the Ptolemaic model is flawed, right?  That is, all the other planets orbit the sun, but that the sun and moon orbit the earth?  I mean, I guess you would have to, since the movement of the planets in the sky don't show that they are orbiting the Earth, but the sun.  Considering that we are not in the center of the milky way, but that our galaxy has a galactic center, around which the entire galaxy orbits, does it make much sense that while the entire galaxy spins around its core, at the same time, the Earth stands motionless and and the galaxy spins around the earth?  From a purely physical perspective, you know, those laws of physics that God put in place, why would we be the only object in the universe that does not behave according to the same physical laws governing the rest of the universe?  Do you know of any scientists who offer a hypothesis of how that would work, or is this based solely upon Scripture and infallible Church teaching, without any scientific evidence to support it??
Reply
#54
(11-25-2012, 08:44 PM)Melkite Wrote: The 1200 minimum thing is something I haven't read much into.  The last I have read about this topic, the majority of scientists were still saying that there was one common male and one common female ancestor.  Is this no longer the majority opinion in science?

It still is, yes.  They are called Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve.  Y-Chromosomal Adam is said to be the most common recent ancestor of all living humans, and he is supposed to have lived about 140,000 years ago.  If you want to say he is Noah, then that's your right, but he's not close to even the 1,200 bottleneck in the genetic survey.  Also you might want to consider that 140,000 BC (as far as the scientific community is concerned), predates wine-making and city-building and even monotheistic religion, so you may have a difficult time squaring the biblical story with the evolutionary record.  I'm sure you'll devise a way, though.

(11-25-2012, 08:44 PM)Melkite Wrote: If the evidence shows a bottleneck of a minimum of 1200, is there any reason in that evidence that that had to be the very beginning of the human species?

No.  Actually, it's supposed to be more recent than that.  But it's the only small bottleneck to be found in the DNA modeling.  As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the same modeling showed an earlier bottleneck around 3 million years ago, but that one was 10,000.  Sorry, but no help.

As for what you wrote next, it speaks for itself.  And I will say this much, I commend you on your honesty:

(11-25-2012, 08:44 PM)Melkite Wrote: If it could be proven that the beginning of humanity consisted of 1200, and I mean truly proven, no scientific way out of it, it was a verifiable, set-in-stone fact, I would revise my faith to exclude original sin, at least, as having been handed down from one man.

(11-25-2012, 08:44 PM)Melkite Wrote: Would you be able to do that?  Could you allow your faith to be led by reason, or would you ignore demonstrable fact in order to preserve a faith based on a falsehood?

No.  To answer your question, I would not do it.  The "fact" would necessarily have to be a deception.  The faith is the truth.  We don't not believe in the Trinity or the Incarnation just because they escape our reason.

(11-25-2012, 08:44 PM)Melkite Wrote: I believe there was a literal flood.  I don't necessarily believe it was worldwide because the evidence isn't there to support it.  I think of Genesis as being our version of primal religion.  All of the stories in Genesis have so many typological elements pointing to Christ, that it is hard for me to believe that the stories are more historic fact than pre-emptive catechism.  The flood is clearly that - a type of baptism and a catechesis on baptism.

Interesting.  I've never heard of the flood as a baptism allegory.  As far as I'm aware, the story is about salvation.  The ark represents the Church, and only those on board are saved.  Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Reply
#55
(11-25-2012, 06:20 PM)Axona Wrote: Do you even know what you're talking about? Have you ever taken a genetics course in your life?

Yes, many. Before my conversion I was studying biopsychology with an emphasis in genetics and German literature (for fun). I was a left-wing atheist living a very wicked, hedonistic lifestyle. My evil ways finally reached the breaking point, and I had to quit school a year before I would have graduated. By the grace of God through Our Lady I managed to avoid killing myself in my depravity, and received something far better than scholarship in finding the Holy Church. Thanks for asking!

(11-25-2012, 06:20 PM)Axona Wrote: How does macro-evolution jump to "rash conclusions" without following "stringent scientific methods"?

Because there is no actual evidence for macro-evolution. It is simply a conjecture of what could potentially happen when millions of micro-evolutionary phenomena are compounded over a great space of time. It cannot be experimented, and obviously not replicated. The Scientific Method demands that the hypothesis be tested by controlled experiment, and to be deemed accurate the results must be replicable. By remaining outwith the realm of testable hypotheses, macro-evolution is, at best, a philosophical proposition. Yet our modern secularists portray macro-evolution as incontrovertible (and often sacred) fact.

When we cannot find an absolute answer, generally the lex parsimoniae ("Ockham's Razor") is followed. To surmise that nothing that existed for no reason from nothing magically exploded with no cause,  and billions of years later a single prokaryotic organism suddenly appeared and billions of years later intelligent humans -- formed in the image and likeness of God -- descended from this one prokaryote hardly seems the simpler explanation than to simply suppose that God created all His creatures by their type as Genesis relates.
Reply
#56
(11-25-2012, 09:21 PM)Hanno Wrote: No.  To answer your question, I would not do it.  The "fact" would necessarily have to be a deception.  The faith is the truth.  We don't not believe in the Trinity or the Incarnation just because they escape our reason.

This. To re-emphasize what I already posted from HH Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Providentissimus Deus:

Providentissimus Deus Wrote: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."
Reply
#57
(11-25-2012, 08:44 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 07:59 PM)Hanno Wrote: Sorry, but Noah isn't the solution.  Read the OP again!  Noah's sons and their wives constitute a bottleneck of 6.  The point of the OP was that DNA modelling argues for a bottleneck of 1,200 at minimum.  You can change the problem from Adam to Noah, but you're still avoiding the question.  How do you reconcile your bottleneck of 6 with the data that says it was 1,200?

Anyway, you don't have to believe in the flood.  The flood is not de fide.  Original Sin is.  Pius XII says that as Catholics we must believe in a bottleneck of 2 with Adam & Eve.  The evolutionary history contradicts this.  How do explain the contradiction?

The 1200 minimum thing is something I haven't read much into.  The last I have read about this topic, the majority of scientists were still saying that there was one common male and one common female ancestor.  Is this no longer the majority opinion in science?

If the evidence shows a bottleneck of a minimum of 1200, is there any reason in that evidence that that had to be the very beginning of the human species?  If so, perhaps the human species existed at a brute animal before God ensouled Adam?  Perhaps y-chromosomal Adam is Adam, and mitochondrial Eve was just a human animal.  That's assuming that the 1200 bears out scientifically as more than a hypothesis.

If it could be proven that the beginning of humanity consisted of 1200, and I mean truly proven, no scientific way out of it, it was a verifiable, set-in-stone fact, I would revise my faith to exclude original sin, at least, as having been handed down from one man.  Would you be able to do that?  Could you allow your faith to be led by reason, or would you ignore demonstrable fact in order to preserve a faith based on a falsehood?

I believe there was a literal flood.  I don't necessarily believe it was worldwide because the evidence isn't there to support it.  I think of Genesis as being our version of primal religion.  All of the stories in Genesis have so many typological elements pointing to Christ, that it is hard for me to believe that the stories are more historic fact than pre-emptive catechism.  The flood is clearly that - a type of baptism and a catechesis on baptism.  But I do believe there was an actual event that the story is based on, and I do believe something happened that wiped out all of humanity except for one man and a few women.
Excellent questions Melkite.....all are addressed here by sugenis....your exact questions in fact...well done sir! galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/Answers_to_QA_for_website.doc click to get the document
Reply
#58
(11-25-2012, 08:24 PM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: nterviewer: "So, Dr. Sungenis, you believe that the sun goes around the earth, is that correct?"

Sungenis: "Yes, and so do a lot of other people."

Interviewer: "Like who?"

Sungenis: "Well, they won't come right out and admit it, but they do hold that geocentrism is just as valid a model of cosmology as heliocentrism."

Interviewer: "And who are these people?"

Sungenis: "Oh, people like Albert Einstein, Ernst Mach, Julian Barbour, Bruno Bertotti...."

Please don't tell me Sungenis thinks Einstein thought that geocentrism was a valid model of cosmology due to general relativity. If anything can be a frame of reference, then Jupiter-centrism or Pluto-centrism is just a valid model of cosmology! And in Euclidean-Newtonian space, the earth is not the center anyway.

And doesn't Sungenis believe that the earth doesn't rotate? Lol. . .What about satellites being launched to the east, due to the earth's rotational velocity helping the satellites to go into orbit?

Don't you think it's dishonest to accept pseudo-science just because it affirms your pre-conceived beliefs?

(11-25-2012, 07:51 PM)Hanno Wrote: If you both accept the flood, then you're saying that there were two bottlenecks in history: one at Adam and Eve, and another after the deluge.  The first is a bottleneck of 2 humans, the second is a bottleneck of 6.  Fair enough.  How do you reconcile this with the scientific data that says the smallest bottleneck would've been 1,200 at the very least?

I would reconcile it this way:

Let's assume that macro-evolution did happen, and that human beings did evolve from humanoid creatures. The DNA patterns of the first humans (Adam and Eve) would be very similar and almost identical to those of the humanoid creatures who existed alongside them and before them. It was in fact a humanoid ancestral population which constituted the bottleneck of 1,200 or more. The DNA patterns of such humanoid creatures and that of Adam and Eve would be virtually identical. The only major difference would be that God ensouled Adam and Eve and not the other humanoid creatures. (It is the human soul that makes us human, primarily.) Over time, Adam and Eve's offspring mated with the humanoid creatures (whose offspring are human) and with each other, and multiplied (hence, genetic diversity), whereas the purely humanoid creatures died off. Therefore, all of humanity is still descended from Adam.

Yes, I know what you're thinking: but bestiality?! Well. . .it would still be incest otherwise. God sometimes allows for necessary evils.

(11-25-2012, 08:06 PM)Hanno Wrote: P.S.: for Melkite, Doktor Despot, and Axona:

This is a bit off-topic, but do you guys actually believe in a literal flood?  If so, you'd be the first three theistic evolutionists I've met who do.

Most people who accept the evidence for evolution, in my experience, also accept a geological record that says a worldwide flood couldn't have occurred.

So, yeah.  Just out of curiosity ...

Yes, I do believe in a literal flood. I'm not sure about a worldwide flood. I'm also not sure about Noah piling up all the animals two-by-two...
Reply
#59
(11-25-2012, 09:53 PM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: Excellent questions Melkite.....all are addressed here by sugenis....your exact questions in fact...well done sir! galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/Answers_to_QA_for_website.doc click to get the document

Sorry, I don't have time to read a 175 page document on this.  Why don't you go ahead and summarize the points you see as relevant
Reply
#60
(11-25-2012, 09:34 PM)Servus Immaculatae Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 06:20 PM)Axona Wrote: How does macro-evolution jump to "rash conclusions" without following "stringent scientific methods"?

Because there is no actual evidence for macro-evolution. It is simply a conjecture of what could potentially happen when millions of micro-evolutionary phenomena are compounded over a great space of time. It cannot be experimented, and obviously not replicated. The Scientific Method demands that the hypothesis be tested by controlled experiment, and to be deemed accurate the results must be replicable. By remaining outwith the realm of testable hypotheses, macro-evolution is, at best, a philosophical proposition. Yet our modern secularists portray macro-evolution as incontrovertible (and often sacred) fact.

So are the life cycles of stars just a philosophical proposition too?

(11-25-2012, 02:58 PM)Melkite Wrote: 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?

Plus, we know that chihuahuas evolved from gray wolves. Some will say that this is just micro-evolution or "accidental change". Well, it's sure a big accidental change, as chihuahuas are very different from gray wolves. So given a few more "accidental changes" guided by natural or artificial selection. . .over time, the chihuahua will evolve into something that looks completely different from the gray wolf. So where do you draw the line between "types" of animals, anyway? If literal creationism is true, did God create ex nihilo each individual sub-species? Species? Genus? Family? Order? Class? or Phylum? of animals? And how do you know?

And of course macro-evolution is testable and falsifiable. From Wikipedia (yeah, yeah, it's Wikipedia, but I'm just giving an example):
Quote:For example, the fact that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than the great apes offered a testable hypothesis involving the fusion or splitting of chromosomes from a common ancestor. The fusion hypothesis was confirmed in 2005 by discovery that human chromosome 2 is homologous with a fusion of two chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. Extra, inactive telomeres and centromeres remain on human chromosome 2 as a result of the fusion. The assertion of common descent could also have been disproven with the invention of DNA analysis. If true, human DNA should be far more similar to chimpanzees and other great apes, than to other mammals. If not, then common descent is falsified. DNA analysis has shown that humans and chimpanzees share a large percentage of their DNA (between 95% to 99.4% depending on the measure). Also, the evolution of chimpanzees and humans from a common ancestor predicts a (geologically) recent common ancestor. Numerous transitional fossils have since been found. Hence, human evolution has passed several falsifiable tests.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)