Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/5/2005 7:48:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 1:51:26 PM EDT by ZitiForBreakfast]
I find it amazing, and sometimes comical that those who refuse to accept the word of God as true, and side with an argument (Darwins THEORY) which has no facts to support it. Yet you refuse to think that something that (as you say) has no facts to support it is true.

Why is that?

Edit: Grammer

If any of the professional grammer literate types who feel the urge, please post the way YOU would like this to be worded. Post and IM'ing insults and offering nothing to the thread does no one any good, even yourself. Except if that one second it makes you feel good or the lingering feelings of pride...
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 3:32:33 AM EDT
This was IM'd to me...


The common usage of "theory" is quite different than the scientific usage of the word.

In science, Gravity is a THEORY. Do you dismiss it out of hand as well? If you need to be beat upside the head with a bigger clue-stick than the THEORY of Gravity, then I suggest doing a little research in to the fields of hard science, and see how much is considered "theory" that you accept as fact.

In any case, WTF do you need to start yet another thread on the subject?



Link Posted: 12/6/2005 5:16:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:
This was IM'd to me...


The common usage of "theory" is quite different than the scientific usage of the word.

In science, Gravity is a THEORY. Do you dismiss it out of hand as well? If you need to be beat upside the head with a bigger clue-stick than the THEORY of Gravity, then I suggest doing a little research in to the fields of hard science, and see how much is considered "theory" that you accept as fact.

In any case, WTF do you need to start yet another thread on the subject?







There are three basic steps to scientific discovery. First is the hypothesis which has no supporting facts but can be investigated. Second is the theory with supporting facts and can be investigated. Third is scientific law, proven and confirmed by peer review.

Gravity is a fact just like the existance of light is a fact. For a long time no one knew what light was comprised of. We now know light is mass, photons. No one knows what gravity is made of. The existance of "gravitons" is the current hypothesis.

Evolution is a hypothesis IMHO. Much observation and conjecture but no supporting facts.

I agree, it is comical to listen to these people and their double standards. Its even more funny to see scientists caught lying.

Shok
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 5:37:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:
Gravity is a fact



Careful here... What is a "fact" is that things have fallen down due to gravity before. We expect them to fall down again in the same way in the future. Looking at the universe, the galaxies don't obey simple gravitational attraction like we see on Earth. Either there's some invisible gravitational charge in the universe, or gravity doesn't really work the way we approximate it locally.

Similarly, a "fact" is that light has been observed.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 9:12:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:
This was IM'd to me...


The common usage of "theory" is quite different than the scientific usage of the word.

In science, Gravity is a THEORY. Do you dismiss it out of hand as well? If you need to be beat upside the head with a bigger clue-stick than the THEORY of Gravity, then I suggest doing a little research in to the fields of hard science, and see how much is considered "theory" that you accept as fact.

In any case, WTF do you need to start yet another thread on the subject?







There are three basic steps to scientific discovery. First is the hypothesis which has no supporting facts but can be investigated. Second is the theory with supporting facts and can be investigated. Third is scientific law, proven and confirmed by peer review.

Gravity is a fact just like the existance of light is a fact. For a long time no one knew what light was comprised of. We now know light is mass, photons. No one knows what gravity is made of. The existance of "gravitons" is the current hypothesis.

Evolution is a hypothesis IMHO. Much observation and conjecture but no supporting facts.

I agree, it is comical to listen to these people and their double standards. Its even more funny to see scientists caught lying.

Shok




Shok, you were doing good until you added in the nonsense about laws.

Here is a good explanation



SCIENTIFIC LAWS and THEORIES



I've had a student ask me to clarify the difference between a scientific "law" and a "theory". This person asked, in part:

".. Is a law, in essence, something which has no detractors --> a unifying 'concept' for which scientists (at the present time) are in accordance with? Is a law a single idea by which all scientists, regardless of discipline, conform?"

" Can a theory be looked at as a 'transitory' law (i.e., a law in waiting)? In contrast to a law, is it correct to say that there can be several scientific theories about a particular phenomena whereas a law represents a single unified agreement among all scientists".



Such questions are very common. The difference between a "law" and a "theory" often confuses people. This happens, in part, because even among scientists there can be different usage of these terms. Of course, to the general public, these terms have very different meanings and connotations. I suggest that you look up the definitions of both words in any English dictionary.

As used in science, I think that it is important to realize that, in spite of the differences (see below), these terms share some things in common. Both are based on tested hypotheses; both are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field; both are widely accepted by the vast majority (if not all) scientists within a discipline. Furthermore, both scientific laws and scientific theories could be shown to be wrong at some time if there are data to suggest so.

Presumably the acceptance of laws/theories also applies across disciplines, although most "Laws" or "Theories" are discipline specific. I can't think of law or theory that really transcends all disciplines per se; there is, as of yet, no "Unified Law (or Theory) of Everything." Most scientists aren't trained to critically analyze the pros and cons of laws or theories outside our field. For example, biologists usually aren't qualified (by training) to critique the "Theory of Relativity" or "The Atomic Theory". I don't think a physicist, chemist or engineer (by training) is qualified to discuss the details of the "Theory of Evolution" or the "Cell Theory" either.

As far as "detractors", the nature of science is to question things, nothing is (or should be) sacrosanct. But, this does not necessarily mean that just because someone questions a law (or theory) that the law/theory in question is wrong. Was Einstein a detractor of Newton when he showed that the Newtonian "Laws" of mechanics did not explain everything (wasn't that why quantum mechanics came into existence)? Just because Newtonian mechanics is "wrong" in some situations, does that mean it is useless? I don't think so!! If certain aspects of evolutionary theory (e.g., natural selection, gradualism) has "detractors" (and I mean among people who are qualified to argue about it -- among biologists), does that mean natural selection (or the idea of biological evolution in general) is wrong? NO!! Scientific knowledge is strengthened by people questioning what is or has been accepted.

Here are a couple of definitions of each word.



LAW

1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).

3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).



THEORY

1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].

5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).




Given my above arguments for how similar these two words are, it is nonetheless true that "law" and "theory" are different words that can or do have different connotations. So, what's the difference? Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.

Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science. Furthermore, notice that with any of the above definitions of law, neither scientists nor nature "conform" to the law. In science, a law is not something that is dictated to scientists or nature; it is not something that a scientist or nature has to do under threat of some penalty if they don't conform.



Literature Cited

Futuyma, D. J. 1979. Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Assoc.

Krimsley, V. S. 1995. Introductory Chemistry, 2nd Ed. Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove.

Lincoln, R. J., G. A. Boxshall, and P. F. Clark. 1990. A dictionary of ecology, evolution and systematics. Cambridge Univ. Press.

Moore, J. A. 1984. Science as a way of knowing--evolutionary biology. Amer. Zool. 24: 467-534.

Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; Oxford University Press, London.

Steen, E. B. 1971. Dictionary of Biology. Barnes and Nobel.




Link Posted: 12/6/2005 3:57:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:
I find it amazing, and sometimes comical that those who refuse to accept the word of God as true, and side with an argument (Darwins THEORY) which has no facts to support it. Yet you refuse to think that something that (as you say) has no facts to support it is true.

Why is that?

Edit: Grammer



Some of us interpret God's word differently. Genesis wasn't meant to be a play-by-play account, it simply states that God created the world in less than a page and then moves on to its subject matter - man's fall and the beginnings of God's plan of redemption. In addition, the order of creation listed in Genesis is the same order of evolution as understood today. Therefore, I see no conflict between Darwin and Genesis.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 4:30:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2005 4:31:31 PM EDT by tfod]
Darwin’s theory is still alive and well today as evident by drug resistant bacteria. Members of a species who develop certain traits may inclined to survive and these traits will become common.

Darwinism- survival of the species.

Evolution- some b.s. invented by a satan ally who wants to end relationships people have with God.

Science – proving the existence of God for over two thousand years.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 6:10:26 AM EDT
For something in science to be elevated to "theory" status, there must be some experimental validation of the hypothesis. No such experimental validation exists for the hypothesis of evolution.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 4:10:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:
I find it amazing, and sometimes comical that those who refuse to accept the word of God as true, and side with an argument (Darwins THEORY) which has no facts to support it. Yet you refuse to think that something that (as you say) has no facts to support it is true.

Why is that?

Edit: Grammer



Where's the proof that the word of God is absolutely true? Can you prove that your interpretation of the Bible is correct? That the meaning hasn't been altered by modern ideas? That nothing was lost in the translation to English? How can you demand that an opposing viewpoint present evidence when you have no hard proof of your own "theory"? Just some words in a book. That is true of both Evolution and Creationism, the source book changes, other than that they are the same. And the logical arguement behind Evolution is more convincing than the logical arguement behind Creationism. Evolution is based upon patterns noticable by anyone, it has a basis in what anyone can confirm to be true (patterns of striking similarity in nature between lifeforms), however Creationism is based on a millenia-old set of words in a book.

A non-literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation allows for both theories to coexist in peace, but some aren't willing to accept that their viewpoint as they heard and read from someone else is not the absolute truth. Why this is, I cannot guess.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 5:19:29 PM EDT
Ultimately, both are faith based systems.

Neither can fully be subjected to pure scientific analysis.

Link Posted: 12/11/2005 8:40:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:
I find it amazing, and sometimes comical that those who refuse to accept the word of God as true, and side with an argument (Darwins THEORY) which has no facts to support it. Yet you refuse to think that something that (as you say) has no facts to support it is true.

Why is that?

Edit: Grammer



Ziti - doesn't this kind of logic work both ways?

Link Posted: 12/11/2005 10:55:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
For something in science to be elevated to "theory" status, there must be some experimental validation of the hypothesis. No such experimental validation exists for the hypothesis of evolution.



It has experimental validation, there are numerous examples of speciation in the laboratory and the wild.

Btw, that is not a true requirement, to earn a legitimate status it needs to make predictions that can be observed in nature and have those predictions verified.

Its foolish to say that you must have experimental validation. Observation of predictions in the natural world also counts for confirmation of a hypothesis. Enough confirmations and you have a theory.

Link Posted: 12/11/2005 11:20:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:
I find it amazing, and sometimes comical that those who refuse to accept the word of God as true, and side with an argument (Darwins THEORY) which has no facts to support it.



As someone who takes the theory of evolution seriously, I must ask you to clarify. Which God's word am I to follow?

Allah? Buddha? Zeus?

They all have their beginnings.....all just as valid as yours. Unless you can provide tangible proof that yours is real, and theirs is false, you're no better than the evolutionists who mock Christianity.

What most Christians object to isn't evolution offering a science-based explanation of our origins, but of anyone who doesn't agree with them. They offer no resistance whatsoever to science when it's guessing in the dark, so long as it doesn't directly conflict the good book. Hell, they even take pseudo-science to heart, but when it bucks what Pastor Tim preaches every Sunday, it's blasphemy. That to me has always been the most disturbing part of the Christian creationist viewpoint. They use science when it suits them, but when it disagrees, it's a sham.
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 4:43:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By swingset:

What most Christians object to isn't evolution offering a science-based explanation of our origins, but of anyone who doesn't agree with them. .



thing is, macro evolution DOES NOT offer a science-based explanation of things.

They offer a competing faith-based idea, and then mock others for not accepting it as fact. WShich isn't completely unlike many who CLAIM to be Christian.

Link Posted: 12/12/2005 5:00:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By swingset:

What most Christians object to isn't evolution offering a science-based explanation of our origins, but of anyone who doesn't agree with them. .



thing is, macro evolution DOES NOT offer a science-based explanation of things.

They offer a competing faith-based idea, and then mock others for not accepting it as fact. WShich isn't completely unlike many who CLAIM to be Christian.




The problem is Gman, that belief is simply not based on fact. We have tons of evidence for evolution.

Your faith requires you to ignore the evidence, and I understand that, but it doesn't mean it suddenly disappears because you don't believe in it.

I suspect the battle over evolution will quietly fade away when science makes the next big breakthrough that counters some cherished religious view.

Link Posted: 12/12/2005 11:57:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By swingset:

What most Christians object to isn't evolution offering a science-based explanation of our origins, but of anyone who doesn't agree with them. .



thing is, macro evolution DOES NOT offer a science-based explanation of things.




No, good sir, you BELIEVE that evolution doesn't offer a science-based explanation of how we progress as living organisms. Evolution was formed by scientific study, using scientific observation, and counts on scientific scrutiny. The only intangible is repeatable evidence, but it is based wholly in the scientific world, which is by its nature impartial. If it were a belief system, then we could attribute ANYTHING to evolution, even the mysterious or the metaphysical. A serious view of evolution and its history as a scientific theory have shown, without much doubt, that that science has continued to throw out the bad and embrace the good precisely because science is not a faith based system, only people are.

Evolution may never tell us how or who created us, but it tells us how we have made this far. It doesn't discount the word of God, any more than your belief in a God proves it. It just offers evidence, massive evidence, that we are products of nature. Why is that so hard to buy, or such a threat?

Anyway, you're the last person on earth I'd expect to come around to my way of thinking.....and I'm typing this for the forum's sake, not yours. I place your views right up there with Carot Top & Al Franken's on my "meaningful & insightful" list.
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 3:33:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 4:49:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By garandman:
thing is, macro evolution DOES NOT offer a science-based explanation of things.

They offer a competing faith-based idea, and then mock others for not accepting it as fact. WShich isn't completely unlike many who CLAIM to be Christian.




The problem is Gman, that belief is simply not based on fact. We have tons of evidence for evolution.




I've personally given you most of teh evidence for teh ONLY kind of evolution that has or even CAN be tested scientifically.

SHort term, localized evolution.

The other kind of evolution is PURELY faith based, and wholly outside the realm of science.


I suspect the battle over evolution will quietly fade away when science makes the next big breakthrough that counters some cherished religious view.




BILLIONS of men over thousands of years have died waiting for that day. Talk about a faith based religion - here you have all your faith staked in some possible future happenning, and some undocumentable, unverifiable process outside the realm of science said to have happenned in the past.

You really exposed your fallacious logic there, my friend.

Link Posted: 12/12/2005 4:50:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By swingset:

Anyway, you're the last person on earth I'd expect to come around to my way of thinking.....and I'm typing this for the forum's sake, not yours. I place your views right up there with Carot Top & Al Franken's on my "meaningful & insightful" list.



You STILL need a hobby.



Link Posted: 12/12/2005 6:19:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:
I find it amazing, and sometimes comical that those who refuse to accept the word of God as true, and side with an argument (Darwins THEORY) which has no facts to support it. Yet you refuse to think that something that (as you say) has no facts to support it is true.

Why is that?

Edit: Grammer



When faced with the choice of believing in a theory or a fairy tale, I'll choose theory every time.

First to intelligently discuss this issue you have to stop being obtuse. So stop it.

The Christian Bible is not "the God's" word or even a God's word. It was written by men and over the years it has been translated, interpreted and edited by men to serve their needs.

Now I haven't spent a lot of time researching the creation of the Old Testament the Torah or the Quran but all three have a lot in common.

However I do know that about 1800 years ago the Catholic Church decide to create a Standardized New Testament. based on ancient writings from the time that Jesus was alive and soon after. Many of the works that were rejected as being inappropriate or un-poplular with the Catholic Church have been lost to obscurity, others were lost in wars and even others were intentionally destroyed. Many other writings have been partially recovered but were in such bad shape upon their discovery that their content will never be re-constructed.

There were at least eight books, many of which were discovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls that were left out of the Catholic Churches and subsequently everyone elses version of the New Testament.

The book of Jubilees
The book of Enoch
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of James
The Gnostic Gospel
Gospel of Mary Magdalene
Gospel of Nicodemus
The Apocalypes of Peter.
(for more information on these works do a Google Search on the above title but put a + in front of each word for example +Gospe +of +Thomas)

So it is safe to say that the Bible such as it is, is not God's word. It is the writings of men presented to you by the Catholic Church edited and abridged condensed, translated, modified, interpreted. Nor does the contents of the Bible represent evidence or proof of God's existance.

The people that wrote the bible were the enlightened of their time and devine inspiration or not they thought the world was flat. They thought the Earth was the center of the Universe they wiped their asses with a sponge on a stick.

Speaking of the old testament who was Cain's wife? Why isn't there any physical evidence of Noah's flood? Not to mention the fact that it would take five times the current amount of water on the earth (including the water in the polar ice caps) to flood it's surface. Where did all that water come from? How did all the trees survive all that time under water without sunlight? How did Noah manage to get Kangaroos, Koala's, Dingos, Polar Bears, Penguins, Komodo Dragons,.......

Oh yes well I know the argument here is these stories are metaphores etc. etc. but which is it for you Christian types? Is the Bible the Word of God or is it the metaphore's of God. Exactly what parts of the Bible are metaphorical and what parts are not.

Dinosaurs, why is there no mention of dinosaurs in the Bible? I'll tell you. Men and dinosaurs never co-existed. Dinosaurs were extinct millions of years before man ever evolved. That kinda blows the 6 day creation myth out of the water. You may ask why weren't any of their remains discovered earlier? Well lets see, 2000 years ago who did all the digging? I'll tell you, slave did all the digging and a fossilized bone represented nothing more to them than another rock to fuck up their day. Even if one of those sorry bastards were to try to bring attention to an oddly shapped stone that looked like the bone of a strange animal ask yourself what would be the likely result. "Oh look this looks like a very large tooth." CRACK! "Shut up and dig!"

Finally, there are observations, facts and physical evidence that support the theory of evolution. Darwin was not the first to discover them but he was on of the first in recorded history to survive having gone public with his heretical theory.

What I find amazing and always comical is how an otherwise intelligent person can look at the world such as it is and be even vaguely familiar with world history and still believe it was somehow not only created but is currently being controlled by some benevolent omni potent being.

Oh Yeah, here it comes,... But without God who would set the moral guidlines for society? Without God and religion what would prevent chaos? Indeed.....

If the fear of the wrath of a God is the only thing that prevents an individual from murdering their next door neighbor and raping his wife and daughters they have bigger problems Darwinism vs Creationism. Even gorillas and chimpanzees live in groups with rules. I've watched a lot of wildlife documentaries but I've never seen a Silverback Gorilla butt-fucking a Juvenile male member of the troop.

The point is living in a society is not rocket science unless the society in question makes it so. The American Indians didn't have the Bible to guide their morality but some how it was just understood that raping your next door neighbors nine year old daughter or son was not acceptable behavior. Imagine fucking that?.....
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 12:30:34 PM EDT
Usually I DON'T cut and paste articles or provide links on my posts, but I got an email news article from a former professor of mine so thought I'd share it since it's topical and he makes some good distinctions and points.

Enjoy.

Money quotes are towards bottom, bolded for convenience.


Magisterium on Creation and Evolution
Interview With Father Rafael Pascual

ROME, DEC. 14, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Evolution and creation can be compatible, says a philosopher who goes so far as to speak of "evolutionary creation."

Legionary Father Rafael Pascual, director of the master's program in Science and Faith at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, puts his comments in context by clarifying that the "Bible has no scientific end."

The debate on evolution and faith heated up last summer after Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna published an article July 7 in the New York Times in which he affirmed: "Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of 'chance and necessity' are not scientific at all."

To understand the issue better, ZENIT interviewed Father Pascual, author of "L'Evoluzione: crocevia di scienza, filosofia e teologia" (Evolution: Crossroads of Science, Philosophy and Theology), recently published in Italy by Studium.

Q: Yes to evolution and no to evolutionism?

Father Pascual: Evolution, understood as a scientific theory, based on empirical data, seems to be quite well affirmed, although it is not altogether true that there is no longer anything to add or complete, above all in regard to the mechanisms that regulate it.

Instead, I don't think evolutionism is admissible as an ideology that denies purpose and holds that everything is due to chance and to necessity, as Jacques Monod affirms in his book "Chance and Necessity," proposing atheist materialism.

This evolutionism cannot be upheld, either as a scientific truth or as a necessary consequence of the scientific theory of evolution, as some hold.

Q: Yes to creation, no to creationism?

Father Pascual: Creation is a comprehensible truth for reason, especially for philosophy, but it is also a revealed truth.

On the other hand, so-called creationism is also, as evolutionism, an ideology based, on many occasions, on an erroneous theology, that is, on a literal interpretation of the passages of the Bible, which, according to their authors, would maintain, in regard to the origin of species, the immediate creation of each species by God, and the immutability of each species with the passing of time.

Q: Are evolution and creation compatible?

Father Pascual: Evolution and creation may be compatible in themselves; one can speak -- without falling into a contradiction in terms -- of an "evolutionary creation," while evolutionism and creationism are necessarily incompatible.

On the other hand, undoubtedly there was an intelligent design but, in my opinion, it is not a question of an alternative scientific theory to the theory of evolution. At the same time, one must point out that evolutionism, understood as a materialist and atheist ideology, is not scientific.

Q: What does the Church's magisterium say on the matter?

Father Pascual: In itself, the magisterium of the Church is not opposed to evolution as a scientific theory.

On one hand, it allows and asks scientists to do research in what is its specific ambit. But, on the other hand, given the ideologies that lie behind some versions of evolutionism, it makes some fundamental points clear which must be respected:

-- Divine causality cannot be excluded a priori. Science can neither affirm nor deny it.

-- The human being has been created in the image and likeness of God. From this fact derives his dignity and eternal destiny.

-- There is a discontinuity between the human being and other living beings, in virtue of his spiritual soul, which cannot be generated by simple natural reproduction, but is created immediately by God.

Q: What are the fundamental truths on the origin of the world and the human being which the Church indicates as basic points?

Father Pascual: Clearly, the magisterium does not enter into scientific questions as such, which she leaves to the research of specialists. But she feels the duty to intervene to explain the consequences of an ethical and religious nature that such questions entail.

The first principle underlined is that truth cannot contradict truth; there cannot be a real contrast or conflict between a truth of faith -- or revealed truth -- and a truth of reason -- that is, natural -- because both have God as origin.

Second, it is emphasized that the Bible does not have a scientific end but rather a religious end. Therefore, it would not be correct to draw consequences that might implicate science, or respect for the doctrine of the origin of the universe, or about the biological origin of man.

A correct exegesis, therefore, must be done of the biblical texts, as the Pontifical Biblical Commission clearly indicates in "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church."

Third, for the Church, in principle, there is no incompatibility between the truth of creation and the scientific theory of evolution. God could have created a world in evolution, which in itself does not take anything away from divine causality; on the contrary, it can focus on it better as regards its wealth and potentiality.
Fourth, on the question of the origin of the human being, an evolutionary process could be admitted in regard to his corporeal nature, but in the case of the soul, because it is spiritual, a direct creative action is required on the part of God, given that what is spiritual cannot be initiated by something that is not spiritual.
There is discontinuity between matter and spirit. The spirit cannot flow or emerge from matter, as some thinkers have affirmed. Therefore, in man, there is discontinuity in relation to other living beings, an "ontological leap."

Finally, and here we are before the central point: The fact of being created and loved immediately by God is the only thing that can justify, in the last instance, the dignity of the human being.

Indeed, man is not the result of simple chance or blind fate, but rather the fruit of a divine plan. The human being has been created in the image and likeness of God; more than that, he is called to a relationship of communion with God. His destiny is eternal, and because of this he is not simply subject to the laws of this passing world.

The human being is the only creature that God wanted for its own sake; he [the human] is an end in himself, and cannot be treated as a means to reach any other end, no matter how noble it is or seems to be.

Q: An appropriate anthropology is needed therefore that takes all this into consideration and that can give an account of the human being in his entirety.

Father Pascual: On the kind of relationship that the Church promotes with the world of science, John Paul II said the collaboration between religion and science becomes a gain for one another, without violating in any way the respective autonomies.

Q: What is Benedict XVI's thought on creation and evolution?

Father Pascual: Obviously we are not faced with an alternative such as "creation or evolution," bur rather with an articulation.

In a series of homilies, on the first chapters of Genesis, the then archbishop of Munich, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, wrote in 1981: "The exact formula is creation and evolution, because both respond to two different questions. The account of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, does not in fact tell us how man originated. It tells us that it is man. It speaks to us of his most profound origin, illustrates the plan that is behind him. Vice versa, the theory of evolution tries to define and describe biological processes. However, it does not succeed in explaining the origin of the 'project' man, to explain his interior provenance and his essence. We are faced therefore with two questions that complement, not exclude each other."

Ratzinger speaks of the reasonable character of faith in creation, which continues to be, still today, the best and most plausible of the theories.

In fact, Ratzinger's text continues saying, "through the reason of creation, God himself looks at us. Physics, biology, the natural sciences in general, have given us a new, unheard-of account of creation, with grandiose and new images, which enable us to recognize the face of the Creator and make us know again: Yes, in the beginning and deep down in every being is the Creator Spirit. The world is not the product of darkness and the absurd. It comes from an intelligence, from a freedom, from a beauty that is love. To acknowledge this, infuses in us the courage that enables us to live, that makes us capable of confidently facing life's venture."

It is significant that, in his homily at the start of his Petrine ministry, Pope Benedict XVI said: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
ZE05121422

To paraphrase someone "the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go". Evolution has to do with mechanisms of how matter/energy works whereas theology has to do with spirit - the organizing principle of matter/energy.

Put it this way: you can reverse engineer the process where by your brain 'reads' the words on your monitor...but the mechanics of vision, light, monitor, telemetry, CPUSs etc. eventually end with my keyboard. Engineering - the mechanics- alone doesn't account for the typist or the MEANING of the symbols you read. So evolution and theology are asking two different albeit complementary questions.

Link Posted: 12/15/2005 12:34:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:
I find it amazing, and sometimes comical that those who refuse to accept the word of God as true, and side with an argument (Darwins THEORY) which has no facts to support it. Yet you refuse to think that something that (as you say) has no facts to support it is true.

Why is that?

Edit: Grammer




That was edited for grammar?
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 1:48:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rodent:

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:
I find it amazing, and sometimes comical that those who refuse to accept the word of God as true, and side with an argument (Darwins THEORY) which has no facts to support it. Yet you refuse to think that something that (as you say) has no facts to support it is true.

Why is that?

Edit: Grammer




That was edited for grammar?



He didn't say he was improving it.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 8:55:52 PM EDT
Christians make the best scientists. I think research will bear this out.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 1:16:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:
Christians make the best scientists. I think research will bear this out.



__

Probably right KlubMarcus!! Though, none of them are on this site. Those here generally are clutching the "new" testament so close they are unable to make a break with something that would otherwise shatter their little lives.

"Darwin's Theory" is still relatively valid. The concept of "Intelligent Design" (ID) is flawed. If ID where true, then, for instance, eggs would have better protection against the elements. National Geographic had an interesting article re: penguins in this matter. Penquins balance their eggs on their feet...if the egg where to drop on the ice it would instantly freeze and fracture.

Not too intelligent a design!

Chistian scientists?

Give me instead the better...the majority of those who have been awarded that honor and who are Jews; as a group, we are smarter (based upon a typical 3% demographic).





Link Posted: 12/17/2005 1:32:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

Give me instead the better...the majority of those who have been awarded that honor and who are Jews; as a group, we are smarter (based upon a typical 3% demographic).







To bad you are not a Jew,

you are just a gentile that has converted to Judiasm faith. that does not make you a Jew
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 1:57:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 3:07:11 PM EDT by VA-gunnut]
the principles of science upon which evolution is based has taken us to the moon, extended our lives, and ***Edited<va-gunnut>***
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 3:07:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 3:36:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:

Originally Posted By thejokker:
the principles of science upon which evolution is based has taken us to the moon, extended our lives, and ***Edited<va-gunnut>***




I suggest you read the rules for posting in this forum!



Shoot - I always miss the good posts.

I didn't realize macro evolutionary theory was necessary to calculate planetary orbits and rocket propulsion systems.

And how has macro evolutionary theory extended our lives?

Specifically?



Link Posted: 12/19/2005 2:44:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed: "Darwin's Theory" is still relatively valid. The concept of "Intelligent Design" (ID) is flawed. If ID where true, then, for instance, eggs would have better protection against the elements. National Geographic had an interesting article re: penguins in this matter. Penquins balance their eggs on their feet...if the egg where to drop on the ice it would instantly freeze and fracture. Not too intelligent a design!
What? It is intelligent design, designed to feed other hungry critters in Antartica!
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 3:58:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 5:42:03 PM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed: "Darwin's Theory" is still relatively valid. The concept of "Intelligent Design" (ID) is flawed. If ID where true, then, for instance, eggs would have better protection against the elements. National Geographic had an interesting article re: penguins in this matter. Penquins balance their eggs on their feet...if the egg where to drop on the ice it would instantly freeze and fracture. Not too intelligent a design!
What? It is intelligent design, designed to feed other hungry critters in Antartica!



That's silly, scuba.

Intelligent design is NOT guaranteed survival. Otherwise nothign would ever die and the planet would over populate. Which WOULD be an unintelligent deign - ala randomness of macro evolution.

Actually your example disproves Dartwins theory of advancement of the species.

The evolution observed today is VERY rapid - mutations occurring in less than 100 years, and often in just minutes..

IF Darwin were right, and the earth is millions of years old, and the species advancing thru survial of the fittest....

...given how fast we see mutations occur...

...all living organism SHOULD be nearly "bullet proof" by now, and nothing would ever die, as it SHOULD have evolved that much by now, to survive every threat it would face.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 5:20:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman: ...all living organism SHOULD be nearly "bullet proof" by now, and nothing would ever die, as it SHOULD have evolved that much by now, to survive every threat it would face.
Yep! Isn't it also amazing that you can take a critter that did not evolve in a part of the world, and did not exist as a species way back during Super-Continent days, and feed it other living things it has never had contact with? It's almost as if provisions were made for most creatures to be able to consume something in different parts of the world if they are taken away from their "home turf".
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:46:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 10:50:21 AM EDT by scuba_ed]

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:

Originally Posted By garandman: ...all living organism SHOULD be nearly "bullet proof" by now, and nothing would ever die, as it SHOULD have evolved that much by now, to survive every threat it would face.
Yep! Isn't it also amazing that you can take a critter that did not evolve in a part of the world, and did not exist as a species way back during Super-Continent days, and feed it other living things it has never had contact with? It's almost as if provisions were made for most creatures to be able to consume something in different parts of the world if they are taken away from their "home turf".



___

Re:

"...all living organism SHOULD be nearly "bullet proof" by now, and nothing would ever die, as it SHOULD have evolved that much by now, to survive every threat it would face"

__

By that same token, one who believed in ID would also have to believe that the "designer" would be intelligent enough to have done that as well. What about eggs? Let's assume chicken eggs. Why are they so fragile? Wouldn't an intelligent designer have made them more sturdy as to not impare the ability to reproduce?

Evolution is a theory. Many similar assumptions of our physical universe are also theories. Though that doesn't indicate that as a models for rationalizing scientific discourse they are wrong.

News flash for ya, garandman...theories may be modified or elements thereof discarded as new advances and evidence in science replace them.

ID as a legitamate theory? Part of the ID "party-line" also introduces that 'space aliens' may have contributed to ID. Where's the evidence of that crap?

Really, how wierd to you want to seem?

Actually, I guess the evidence is already clear on that, garandman!



Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:57:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
By that same token, one who believed in ID would also have to believe that the "designer" would be intelligent enough to have done that as well.



No, an Intelligent Designer could have very logically craeted a prey / predator environment.



Really, how wierd to you want to seem?

Actually, I guess the evidence is already clear on that, garandman!






As weird as the Torah, which indicated a 5-24 hour period of creation, necessitates I appear.

Speaking of, do YOU beleive that part of the Torah?



Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:14:50 AM EDT
Originally posted by garandman:

As weird as the Torah, which indicated a 5-24 hour period of creation, necessitates I appear.

Speaking of, do YOU beleive that part of the Torah?


___

Re:

"As weird as the Torah, which indicated a 5-24 hour period of creation"

The Torah doesn't indicate a "5-24 hour period of creation". Either you have a defective bible, or are an a-whole.

That said, no, I don't believe of what your defective bible says about the Torah and anything of a "5-24 hour period of creation".

<­BR>
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:25:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:


The Torah doesn't indicate a "5-24 hour period of creation". Either you have a defective bible, or are an a-whole.



Well, OK then....

I should have said SIX-24 hour period days of creation.

Then what do you say the Torah says re: creation?

Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:52:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:


The Torah doesn't indicate a "5-24 hour period of creation". Either you have a defective bible, or are an a-whole.



Well, OK then....

I should have said SIX-24 hour period days of creation.

Then what do you say the Torah says re: creation?




__

The Biblical creation story, up to and including the deluge, is generally regarded as a myth by most scientists and many religious believers (i.e., non-creationists). The arguments raised come from cosmology, geology, evolution (in particular fossil evidence), and textual analysis of the Bible itself— it is argued that this evidence indicates that the described events, if taken literally, are scientifically impossible.

A myth, yes...and why not? Genesis simply starts the story of a communal creation, revelation, and redemption story that has been, and holds as spiritually important to Jews for millenia.

garandmand, if you have problems with the mythical aspects of Genesis, that's for you to resolve...it simply can't be resolved in this forum. Similar, too, is the myth that this is a world redeemed...okay, perhaps that may be ascertained by reading or viewing the news of the hatred and persecution that still exists in this world.

Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:56:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

The Biblical creation story, up to and including the deluge, is generally regarded as a myth by most scientists and many religious believers (i.e., non-creationists).



OK, thanx for the explanation.




garandmand, if you have problems with the mythical aspects of Genesis, that's for you to resolve...it simply can't be resolved in this forum.




Right, so I'll not bother trying.

To me its raises another, far more important issue -

If that part of Genesis is mythical, is the account of Abraham mythical? How about Moses? The giving of the law itself?

Who determines what is mythical in the Torah, and what is not?



Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:32:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 12:35:14 PM EDT by scuba_ed]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
garandmand, if you have problems with the mythical aspects of Genesis, that's for you to resolve...it simply can't be resolved in this forum.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Right, so I'll not bother trying.

To me its raises another, far more important issue -

If that part of Genesis is mythical, is the account of Abraham mythical? How about Moses? The giving of the law itself?

Who determines what is mythical in the Torah, and what is not?


___

Well, then...of course when speaking of Genesis, when it became part of the historical revelation to Jews...those of that time didn't have the benefit science, or even the perniciousness of Intelligent Design...did they?

"Who determines what is mythical in the Torah, and what is not? "

___

That's up to you. Certainly Jews have held closely the inspirational Creation, Relevation and Redemption aspects of the Torah for over 4,000 years. What is mythical? Quite honestly, all you need to do is look around you.

The 10 Commandments given to the Jews in the Near East have provided the mainstay of legal and ethical basis throughout the West. Jews were and have been the conduit of this message. Mythical? No. Evidentiary.

That collectively, as a world, all of us are incumbent, and are required to try to make the world a better place? Mythical? No. The Torah is explicit upon our responsibilities to each other.

That there is some sort of predestination for which our actions are pre-ordained by some being? Bull-hockey!! Mythical? No. Otherwise the G-d of the Jews would not have taught us of our responsibilties to each other, and before G-d.

That the Torah predestines a savior for the human race requiring fidelity to a human, or of a typical human-son of-Greek-Hero myth? Mythical?

YES.

Is this, then, a world redeemed?

No. Check the news.

If that person had a successful mission on earth, then truly the world would be a semblance of humanity. Perhaps that's why many await the "second-coming"...for this "mythical" being to live up to the promise!

What is mythical in the Torah? Those who would extrapolate references without context so to fit in with their views. Of course, this requires blind-folds as to the current nature of our world.

<­BR>
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:44:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
Well, then...of course when speaking of Genesis, when it became part of the historical revelation to Jews...those of that time didn't have the benefit science, or even the perniciousness of Intelligent Design...did they?



So anything in the Torah that disagrees with the current "scientific " thinking is to be rejected?

Here's an example - in the 1700's they thoguht blood should be gotten out of the body - it was bad.

Of course we NOW know they were wrong.

We ALSO know the Torah said "The life of the flesh is in the blood."

So what determines what is right - the fact something is supported by modern day science, which as we see has both been changed thru further scientific discovery, and also shown to be wrong by the Torah?

Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:47:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

"Who determines what is mythical in the Torah, and what is not? "

___

That's up to you.



So the end user decides what is mythical and what isn't?

What if two end users disagree? Are they both right?

Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:51:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

"Who determines what is mythical in the Torah, and what is not? "

___

That's up to you.



So the end user decides what is mythical and what isn't?

What if two end users disagree? Are they both right?




__

Find, and be happy with your own path!

Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:54:57 PM EDT
Couple of things to add... first of all, I thought Darwin's THEORY was just that - a THEORY, not FACT. Why can't the educators and MSM understand the difference.

Also, I thought Darwin's THEORY was that certain species evolved over time, not that mankind was a slug that evolved by happenstance into human beings.

Last, I thought Darwin' recanted his THEORY during his dying days. If this is true, then why the hell are we even talking about his RECANTED THEORY??
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 2:01:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 2:02:40 PM EDT by Vangeon]

Originally Posted By cheaptrickfan:
Couple of things to add... first of all, I thought Darwin's THEORY was just that - a THEORY, not FACT. Why can't the educators and MSM understand the difference.

Also, I thought Darwin's THEORY was that certain species evolved over time, not that mankind was a slug that evolved by happenstance into human beings.

Last, I thought Darwin' recanted his THEORY during his dying days. If this is true, then why the hell are we even talking about his RECANTED THEORY??



It is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. It is not the same as the word "theory" that is used in everyday common language. In science, a theory is the best you can get. A scientific theory has to be supported by a good amount of evidence, as evolution has for many years. Modern DNA evidence also tends to confirm the theory.

As for Darwin recanting, that is nothing more than a rumor at best. I think his family denied that it happened. Even if he did, we have so much evidence of it nowadays that it would not nullify the theory.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 2:07:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Vangeon:

Originally Posted By cheaptrickfan:
Couple of things to add... first of all, I thought Darwin's THEORY was just that - a THEORY, not FACT. Why can't the educators and MSM understand the difference.

Also, I thought Darwin's THEORY was that certain species evolved over time, not that mankind was a slug that evolved by happenstance into human beings.

Last, I thought Darwin' recanted his THEORY during his dying days. If this is true, then why the hell are we even talking about his RECANTED THEORY??



It is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. It is not the same as the word "theory" that is used in everyday common language. In science, a theory is the best you can get. A scientific theory has to be supported by a good amount of evidence, as evolution has for many years. Modern DNA evidence also tends to confirm the theory.

As for Darwin recanting, that is nothing more than a rumor at best. I think his family denied that it happened. Even if he did, we have so much evidence of it nowadays that it would not nullify the theory.



+1

It's a theory like the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity.
Top Top