Evolution Must Go
#61
(11-25-2012, 10:36 PM)Axona Wrote: 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.

This is the exact (circumstantial) evidence which I had already cited, which, while fascinating, is certainly not a testable, replicable proof that humans descended from the Great Apes.

Following the lex parsimoniae, we may predicate that this indicates that God created two beings that are quite similar. Nothing more. We do indeed have a verifiable fact that humans are similar to the Great Apes. We do not by any means have a proof that humans are descended from beasts.

Macro-evolution does not state the facts (which is the realm of science), rather it is an attempt to explain the inexplicable why (which is the realm of philosophy).
Reply
#62
(11-25-2012, 09:59 PM)Axona Wrote:
(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.

Unfortunately, the bottleneck of 1,200 is estimated to have happened 20,000-40,000 years ago.  If you put the biblical Adam at that point in evolutionary history, then you'd be totally thumbing your nose at the Y-Chromosomal Adam dating, which places him at about 140,000 years ago.  The two don't line up.
Reply
#63
(11-25-2012, 08:57 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(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??
All the astrophisicists and models place earth at the center of the entire universe...and our location in a milkyway galaxy is mere speculation.
Reply
#64
On the bestiality versus incest dilemma, would God ever allow either one? The idea that God would allow or command one to do either of these things would seem to be rather voluntaristic, as if the moral law were based on nothing more than divine fiat.
Reply
#65
(11-26-2012, 12:23 AM)Hanno Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 09:59 PM)Axona Wrote:
(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.

Unfortunately, the bottleneck of 1,200 is estimated to have happened 20,000-40,000 years ago.  If you put the biblical Adam at that point in evolutionary history, then you'd be totally thumbing your nose at the Y-Chromosomal Adam dating, which places him at about 140,000 years ago.  The two don't line up.

Well, if the 1,200 bottleneck occurred after Y-Chromosomal Adam, then I don't see why there is a problem at all. . .

(11-26-2012, 12:54 AM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: All the astrophisicists and models place earth at the center of the entire universe...and our location in a milkyway galaxy is mere speculation.

Really. ALL of them do? Says who? Sungenis? Sungenis believes that the earth does not even rotate, i.e., unmoving center of the universe. What about satellites being launched to the east, due to the earth's rotational velocity helping the satellites to go into orbit. . .?? He also skews Einstein's theory of relativity to fit his agenda, per his interview answer. He essentially implies that Einstein accepted the geocentric model as "legitimate" simply because relativity holds that one can take any frame to be the reference frame. But with relativity there is no absolute reference frame, so the earth cannot be the reference frame either. Pluto or Jupiter might as well be the "center". So what exactly is he talking about? Einstein did not support geocentrism. Sungenis is either honestly clueless or he is a liar.

(11-25-2012, 11:26 PM)Servus Immaculatae Wrote: This is the exact (circumstantial) evidence which I had already cited, which, while fascinating, is certainly not a testable, replicable proof that humans descended from the Great Apes.

Following the lex parsimoniae, we may predicate that this indicates that God created two beings that are quite similar. Nothing more. We do indeed have a verifiable fact that humans are similar to the Great Apes. We do not by any means have a proof that humans are descended from beasts.

Macro-evolution does not state the facts (which is the realm of science), rather it is an attempt to explain the inexplicable why (which is the realm of philosophy).

So are the life cycles of stars outside the realm of science too?

Also, someone please address this important point:
(11-25-2012, 10:36 PM)Axona Wrote: 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?
Reply
#66
Axona...you may argue sungenis is miataken...but he neither a nut or a liar. The basic assumption of the OP is that the Holy Bride of Christ as guided by the Holy Ghost can neithee decive or be decieved. Sungenis has studyed the matter for over 35 years...while it can be argued that Sungenis is no Einstien.....you sir(madam?) are no Sungenis. The vitrol in your comments and the lack of vitrol in his tell me who is using a catholic worldview and who is not. Geocentrism has not been condemned...nor has science disproved it. You are simply defending an assumption you have held all your lifee. Read Gallileo was wrong....by Sungenis....all the math and history is there. Calumny and ad hominum is no argument.
Reply
#67
(11-26-2012, 12:54 AM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: All the astrophisicists and models place earth at the center of the entire universe...and our location in a milkyway galaxy is mere speculation.

The exact location of the earth in the milky way is speculation.  The general area in the galaxy is not.  We know for certain we are not in the galactic core.  We know for certain we are not on the outermost edge.  These things are not mere speculation.
Reply
#68
(11-26-2012, 10:11 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-26-2012, 12:54 AM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: All the astrophisicists and models place earth at the center of the entire universe...and our location in a milkyway galaxy is mere speculation.

The exact location of the earth in the milky way is speculation.  The general area in the galaxy is not.  We know for certain we are not in the galactic core.  We know for certain we are not on the outermost edge.  These things are not mere speculation.
I agree...we are dead center of it all
Reply
#69
(11-26-2012, 04:36 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: On the bestiality versus incest dilemma, would God ever allow either one? The idea that God would allow or command one to do either of these things would seem to be rather voluntaristic, as if the moral law were based on nothing more than divine fiat.

Well, Adam and Eve had three sons, so there are only three options: a)the literal, in which case if Adam and Eve were the first and only humans, then sodomy produced children until more females were born and of birth age. b) Adam and Eve were the first parents, so they must have had daughters that are unmentioned, in which case incest was physically necessary.  c) There were other humans around for Adam and Eve's three sons to mate with that were not decended from Adam and Eve.  

A and C won't be accepted by Catholic fundamentalists, so God allowing incest is really the only option here.
Reply
#70
(11-26-2012, 10:16 AM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: I agree...we are dead center of it all

:doh:  We're not dead center.  We would have to be in the galactic core for that.  We're observably NOT in the center of the galaxy.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)