Theory of Evolution

[philothea]

[quote name='God's Errand Girl' date='Aug 6 2005, 11:10 AM'][url="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp"]http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp[/url]

Just some food for thought...
[right][snapback]674979[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well....

I can't say any of it was convincing, and some of it was downright nonsensical, like:

[quote]‘Cope’s Rule’ describes the tendency of fossils (e.g. shellfish) to get bigger as you trace them upward through the geological strata. But why should evolution make things generally bigger? Indeed, living forms of fossils tend to be smaller than their fossil ancestors. A better explanation may be the sorting action of water.[/quote]
Since the theory of evolution starts with one-celled creatures, and the larger (in general) a life form gets the more sophisticated the systems it requires become, it does kind of support the theory that the smaller fossils should be found further down.

And while I haven't done any experiments myself (neither, it seems have they) I don't see how water brings large fossils to the top. I believe in a viscous medium like water, lighter, smaller things are suspended longer.

Oh well.

[track2004]

In response to the tree example about sedimentary layers being relatively quickly forming, there is a rebuttal to that statement [url="http://www.creationtheory.org/YoungEarth/Hartman-3.shtml"]here[/url]. The rest of that link is a pretty comprehensive on arguments against the Young Earth Creation theory. It explains rates of decay for elements, how scientists try to figure out how old the earth and universe are, and other YEC points. The main page is [url="http://www.creationtheory.org/YoungEarth/"]found here[/url].

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='track2004' date='Aug 6 2005, 02:05 PM']In response to the tree example about sedimentary layers being relatively quickly forming, there is a rebuttal to that statement [url="http://www.creationtheory.org/YoungEarth/Hartman-3.shtml"]here[/url].  The rest of that link is a pretty comprehensive on arguments against the Young Earth Creation theory.  It explains rates of decay for elements, how scientists try to figure out how old the earth and universe are, and other YEC points.  The main page is [url="http://www.creationtheory.org/YoungEarth/"]found here[/url].
[right][snapback]675118[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, let's quote from an anti-Christian site to prove evolution. That's the Spirit!

[quote]If God looks like a man, does God have a penis? What does he use it for?[/quote]

[quote]In short, the only way to interpret Genesis without dogmatically defying everything we have rationally determined about the workings of the universe is to treat it as pure myth, [/quote]

Yes, because absolute truth hinges on our own current understanding of the universe, something which completely changes every thousand years or so.

Edited August 6, 2005 by Brother Adam

[Brother Adam]

"A thousand years ago man knew the earth was the center of the universe.

500 years ago man knew the earth was flat.

Imagine what you will know tomorrow." - MIB

[track2004]

Bro you're still just saying I'm wrong with out anything backing it up or providing another explination for how things happened. I'm outta here. PM me about evolution if you want me to come back.

[Michael D.]

Brother Adam:

You are wrong for attacking track for citing an "anti-Christian" site. She cited that site because it used scientific evidence to back up its claims, not because of its particular attitute toward one particular group of people (the YEC).

Either way its way more evidence than you have contributed to back up your own claims...

...Though i think you have done a nice job of proving Track's point with your last post. Because it illustrates exactly how the scientific process works. We did think the earth was the center... then we found evidence to the contray and revised our view. We did think it was flat(sorta)... but found evidence to the contray and revised our view. And right now we do think that evolution was the method by which the diverse quantity of life came about on this planet... untill we find better evidence to the contrary... real scientific evidence that informs a conclusion rather than a conclusion that informs how we read the evidence.... Untill we find this better evidence (if it exists) evolution is the best [b]THEORY [/b] that we have... but it is always open for revision... as you pointed out.

[Brother Adam]

[quote]You are wrong for attacking track for citing an "anti-Christian" site. She cited that site because it used scientific evidence to back up its claims, not because of its particular attitute toward one particular group of people (the YEC). [/quote]

Michael,

Welcome to phatmass. No, I am not wrong for noting that the site is decidely anti-Christian, as almost all evolutionary sites are. It helps prove my point that evotlion is decidily anti-Christian and some Christians try to force Christian beliefs into evolutionary theory. It doesn't work. Either evolution is true, and there is no higher power, or evolution is not true, and a higher power does exist.

[quote]Either way its way more evidence than you have contributed to back up your own claims...
[/quote]

Just as our friend Mulls doesn't debate Catholics on this board because he is far outnumbered, I don't debate 'thiestic evolutionists' on this board because I am the sole creationist willing to debate the point of view. There are plenty of groups, Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Koble Institute for Creationism (Catholic), that offer arguments and views. As others here know, CatholicsforCreation is currently being built and will be open the middle of this month.

[quote]And right now we do think that evolution was the method by which the diverse quantity of life came about on this planet... untill we find better evidence to the contrary... but it is always open for revision... as you pointed out.[/quote]

"we" being evolutionists, but the claims of evolution are, as you pointed out, not air tight, in fact give it a thousand years and I wouldn't be surprised if 'macro-evolution' is seen as another scientific embarressment. Perhaps for right now my purpose here on creationism is to note that Catholics are allowed to believe in the Holy Scriptures, EVEN Genesis 1 and 2 despite that it is not the popular opinion.

[Michael D.]

Woah, lets back up here a second and focus where this is going.
Let me tell you what I think.

1. Evolution is a valid [b]scientific theory[/b]. There is scientific evidence to back this theory up and as such it has become generally accepted in the scientific field and the general public.

2. Evolution could be wrong because it is just a theory, no definitive proof has been found. If it is wrong thats ok because that is how we as a species learns. If better evidence to the contray is found the theory will either be updated or thrown out entirely as is in keeping with the scientific method.

3. I do not believe in evolution. I think its a good theory. That is not a belief.

4. Thinking evolution is a good theory and a belief in God are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to do both.

5. Evolution is not anti-catholic. A theory on it's own can't be anti-catholic at all.
Some people, "evolutionists" as they are called sometimes, can be anti-catholic, but the theory itself cannot.

6. To my knowledge there is no teaching from the church either way. Which means that we can think what ever we want about evolution.

This is basically what i think about evolution. If you want to debate my assertations, lets do that. This way we can at least be on the same page, because I am not sure we are really debating the same thing.

[White Knight]

[quote name='Michael D.' date='Aug 6 2005, 09:13 PM']Woah, lets back up here a second and focus where this is going.
Let me tell you what I think.

1. Evolution is a valid [b]scientific theory[/b]. There is scientific evidence to back this theory up and as such it has become generally accepted in the scientific field and the general public.

2. Evolution could be wrong because it is just a theory, no definitive proof has been found. If it is wrong thats ok because that is how we as a species learns. If better evidence to the contray is found the theory will either be updated or thrown out entirely as is in keeping with the scientific method.

3. I do not believe in evolution. I think its a good theory. That is not a belief.

4. Thinking evolution is a good theory and a belief in God are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to do both.

[right][snapback]675501[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[b][color=purple]Actually if you study the Theory carefully and try to link it with Creation you will find that they are incompadable with each other. No way can Evolution work with Creation, its one or the other.

Creation takes alittle bit of Faith to believe in, and little evidence to support it, but its still by far more possible than the alternative.


Evolution requires alot of faith, in alot of invalid evidence that has yet to be proven all the way.


Evolution is an awsome theory, but it just is not capiable of being reality. its too flawed. and unfortunately why so many people believe in Evolution still is because there aren't very many strong enough agurements to dismiss it period.[/color][/b]

[b][color=red]Science has even admitted to making certian forgeries to actually try to back up the theroy of evolution. this was discussed back in the early 20's back when Creation was still taught in Schools. When you look at certian so called ancestors of the human race. why so few of them found? that look so much different than others? if this were fact there would many, hundreds maybe even thousands of these ancestor fossils. If thousands or even more were found then the theroy of evolution would be more creditable overall. But since Man even for its low articology skills back then were able to forge and forge very well.[/color][/b]

[b][color=orange]The strongest Anti-Evolution claim is the fact that Evolution denines a Designer over all. I know many people say "No they dont." but it is true, why? because Evolution and Science like to prove things to be logical, in everything, in every way. Evolution and Science, do not like to rely on theory as much as people would think. its funny because alot of science is based on theroy 97% theroy 3% precent fact. Evolution is all theory it has NO Creditable evidence at all to prove anything.[/color][/b]

[color=green][b]Fossils, do not stay preversed that long. they go into dust, as does everything else over time. Okay, Fossils may stay preversed for a few or maybe 5 thousand years with possible (Possible, however unlikely, still remaining DNA on the structures) very possible that they could survive that length of time. but they begin to disappear slowly overtime.[/b][/color]

[color=blue][b]Now when you have 65 million years of so called preversed fossils, by the time you even found it, you wouldn't see anything but dust. Even Over that time just after a few hundred years things begin to decay especially small bodies like human beings. If you tried to dig up George Washington from his grave, you wouldn't find anything except bones in there. and they would be disentergrating over that length of time that they've already been in the grave. You could never find a whole human skeleton, after that only short of time. Think about this. Live living beings are in the ground, crawling and eating things in the ground. especally worms.[/b][/color]


[b]Now logically one could see why Dinosours would stay preversed longer and still have bone structures. its because of their massive size difference, compared to human beings. There litterally, the size of small buildings sometimes. they vared. so ya it would take longer for them to disappear, some thousands of years. But not millions.[/b]


Thats all for now.

Edited August 7, 2005 by White Knight

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'm not really an evolutionist, but I disagree that evolution and God's creative act are incompatible.
Saying God created the universe with evolution in mind and let it do it's thing seems a bit too deistic too me, and a step toward agnosticism. And stressing the point that this whole process was guided providentially doesn't really resolve the tension for me.

What does resolve the tension for me is a metaphysical and cosmological shift in perspective.
The entire history of the cosmos is one in the mind of God; as a single moment. All that exists in this universe was created in the first instant that the universe began. We all existed in potency and the entire unfolding of time and space is simply that single act of God understood and experienced through our temporarality.
I understand the creation account not so much as a scientific or historical presentation of the exact processes of creation, but rather as a Theological and symbolic revelation of the meaning and structure of God's creative "thought" in temporal and material creation, particularly in relation to man. But this is not to deny the literal aspects of Genesis I and II.
Mystical reflection on Genesis I and II can reveal the inner texture of created reality, and it's continuity with the spiritual order; essentially its logos, or logoi spermatikoi (not in a neo-Platonic sense, but in a Laudate_Dominist sense, haha).

[Brother Adam]

Yet, when you deny the historical reality of the first two chapters of Genesis, which directly flow into the history of the rest of Genesis, you effectively deny the offspring of Adam and Eve, because you deny Adam and Eve themselves. If you deny the offspring of Adam and Eve, eventually you are denying the existance of Christ Himself. It was written as history, not as a fairy tale to tell us a moral.


Also - I am still looking for one thiestic evolutionist who would be interested in basically presenting the anti-thesis to historical creationism on the new CatholicsForCreation website. If you are interested I would like to get you in and looking around before it opens to the public, so please email me. It would require some time commitment to research and the development of articles.

[Laudate_Dominum]

It's not that black and white Adam. I qualified what I was saying by indicating that I recognize literal elements to Genesis I & II (certainly including the historical existence of Adam and Eve).

But the genre is nothing like modern history and there is nothing wrong with recognizing the symbolic and "mythical" stylistic elements, which I believe contain Theological depths not even possible in a more 'analytic' style.

[Brother Adam]

Also - yes the Bible is not a mathematical text nor is it a science text. We would not expect to learn Calculus reading the Bible. However, it does record historical events having to do with the physical. It records the great flood, it records the parting of the sea, it records the death and resurrection of Christ. All of these defy common scientific logic and seek extraordinary answers such as a higher power. God can, and does, work in the physical world in amazing ways. To believe otherwise is to lean towards gnosticism and the branch of Protestantism that believes the 'body' and the material are bad. Thus, as with the flood, the parting of the sea, and even the resurrection of Christ, God may have choosen to create the world in such a way that He was directly and personally involved and did not leave life to the develop on its own over hundreds of millions of years. If He cares enough for the lilies of the field I can't see how He wouldn't care enough to be directly involved in the creation of every living creature. Genesis does not tell us how He created it in 6 days, only that He did so.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Aug 7 2005, 11:38 AM']It's not that black and white Adam. I qualified what I was saying by indicating that I recognize literal elements to Genesis I & II (certainly including the historical existence of Adam and Eve).

But the genre is nothing like modern history and there is nothing wrong with recognizing the symbolic and "mythical" stylistic elements, which I believe contain Theological depths not even possible in a more 'analytic' style.
[right][snapback]675887[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Certianly, we can see symbolism in the realities of scripture. We see the Passover lamb of the Jewish faith as symbolic of salvation that is and is to come in the Messiah. However, because something has symbolic elements does not mean that there is not a historical reality also.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I was mainly speaking of the creation account, which has a different style (and I believe intent) than the following chapters.
Genesis is really a complicated book in that it can be seperated into distinct divisions that have pretty different styles.

It gives the modernists enough play to assert wild theories about it's composition (which sound more and more ridiculous every time I read about them).

[Brother Adam]

Which is where we separate - I don't see it as meaning we are suppose to believe it is a myth. It will be interesting taking OT biblical studies this Fall as many of our professors are strict evolutionists (many, though not all). I've caused quite the rukus starting CFC, but that's what a university should be all about. Every view seen as permissible by the Catholic Church should have its chance.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Saying it's in the genre of 'myth' doesn't imply it's a bogus story. The technical use of this term does not imply that it is a fiction, just events related in a particular literary style.
Some parts of the Bible are poetry, some are narrative history, some are mythic, etc.. It's really nothing to be upset about. It's still the inspired Word of God and has literal meaning.

Even John Paul II refers to Genesis I & II as "myth", in the Theology of the Body for example. He isn't implying that it's bogus.

[Laudate_Dominum]

While I recognize that the word 'myth' carries negative connotations in common speech, as a technical term it is quite an appropriate descriptor.
There are pieces of ancient literature that match the style and themes of Genesis I & II (a common example is the Epic of Gilgamesh), these texts are considered myths and often anti-Christians will use this as an argument against the Bible.

This is an utterly stupid argument because any "scholar" making this claim reveals a total lack of understanding of Gen I & II, which is radically different, and in many ways diametrically opposed to the myths in question. And the argument is a fallacy because all they are really saying is that, because Gen I & II is of the same genre, it's automatically equal to the others of that genre and therefore false; mythical in the sense of purely fictional (though a great deal of myth is not 'purely' fictional).
This is like presenting a philosophy text to a guy and him saying, "man, that's bunk, it's just philosophy" and presenting several false philosophy books and claiming they are equal and therefore your book is false. Never mind that the texts might be diametrically opposed. It is an unthinkable blunder in my mind, and a radical embarrassment, that there are scholars out there who actually think they have a cogent argument.

The point I was originally trying to make is that, acknowledging that Gen I & II is in the mythic style or genre, implies nothing about the status of it's content, true of false, but rather provides the means for accurately reading and understanding the text on its own terms.

[Laudate_Dominum]

A very eye opening book is, "Primitive Man and His Symbols", by... I forget..
Anyway, it was an eye-opener for me in my youth (oh so long ago...).

What I've learned, the hard way:

To put what I'm trying to say in my own words, it is necessary to break out of the particularly modern obsession with the linear, analytic way of perceiving reality (and the pre-occupation with efficient causality and such things), and enter into a synthetic mode of perception, if one is to grasp the fuller meaning of ancient myth and symbolism.

I like to think of moderns as being intellectual, and the ancients as being wise. I do not think my approach diminishes the value of Gen I & II, but rather illuminates the depths of its wisdom.
A symbol that captures, in one stroke, the historical, the spiritual and the eternal, is vastly superior in my opinion, to merely analytic (and mundane) description of something.
The symbolism of the Bible reflects the mind of God, and includes simultaneously the primordial, the historical, and the transcendent spiritual counterpart. The beginning and the ultimate end.
One of the greatest tragedies of modern times (in my humble opinion), is that the Bible is so often perceived as little more than a Divinely inspired handbook; and the Christian religion is seen as a bunch of rules of conduct or something (this is not directed toward phatmass, but is general). The reality is that Christianity is a mystical religion, and the Bible is a mystical book; a means of encountering the Word of God in the Spirit. To drink of it as Living Water and be transformed.
Another of my opinions (I must sound opinionated), is that Biblical scholarship that ignores or minimizes the mystical dimension is not really studying the Word of God. They may be studying the black earthly letters and characters, but one must enter into the white of the page.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Aug 7 2005, 11:01 AM']Every view seen as permissible by the Catholic Church should have its chance.
[right][snapback]675895[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Hehe, I wish we'd have a class together some time.