(September 16, 2015 at 1:15 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(September 16, 2015 at 11:38 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: As a Christian who believes in evolution, I'm curious to read these answers as well.

Following!

Yep, me, too.

For those who don't know, the Catholic Church has NO problem with evolution. After all, what's would have prevented God from starting the chain of evolution and letting it play out?

Catholic Church and evolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C..._evolution



Abbot Gregor Mendel (1822-84), Augustinian friar and founder of genetics. Together with Darwin, he laid the groundwork for the study of life sciences in the twentieth century.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

159. Faith and science: "... methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1)

283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers....
284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....

What would of stopped him from not using evolution? Maybe not wasting billions of years for a product he could have made in a split second.

(September 16, 2015 at 1:53 pm)lkingpinl Wrote:

(September 16, 2015 at 1:10 am)Shuffle Wrote: Can all christians that don't believe in evolution explain to me your problems with it. It is just really hard for me to rap my head around someone not believeing in evolution in the 21st century, so it would make it easier if I understood exactly why you don't. And maybe I can help you through your confusions, maybe not.

Thanks!

I think I may be the only one that falls in to this category and while my objections to evolution are many and deep, I don't think we can cover all of it, I'm also curious why you care?  You state you want to help through my confusions, but confusion is far from my objections.  Does it matter to you that I accept evolution?  I see some have stated that Christians deny evolution because it goes against Creationism.  I have logical issues with the theory of evolution, irregardless of Creationism.  

I will get in to these objections when I have a few, though I know I did this fairly recently.

I care because I don't like being confused. And, also, every argument against evolution I have ever heard can be destroyed by one googe search.

(September 16, 2015 at 2:50 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: Ok, As I thought I did discuss this in another thread by Shuffle title "History Repeats itself"

Here are my views:

I would disagree despite the "consensus".  Label me as you will but I think there are immense leaps being made and assumptions based on presuppositions.  I'm sure I will be flamed for taking a presupposition to God's existence as a refutation for evolution, but that's not the case.  The mathematical improbability for increased complexity by gene mutation and natural selection does not lend any credence to the "macro" evolutionary model in my mind.  

This candid admission is from the evolutionist journal Nature:  

"Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change.  The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye.  Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature.  Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities.  One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.

The extrapolation of macroevolution being possible because "there is enough time" is a presupposition that falls flat on its face.  There have been many discussions regarding it.  I understand it's still a highly debated topic, but I firmly believe it is based on unfounded assumptions.  Here is a good scientific peer reviewed article discussing it:


http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/...O-C.2012.4

Little snippet:

"Converting an enzyme to a new function is the kind of thing that should have occurred thousands of time in the course of evolution, given the vast array of biochemical functions carried out by extant enzymes. Yet recent work has shown that converting an enzyme encoded by a 1,200-nucleotide gene to a genuinely new function4 is likely to require seven or more coordinated mutations. This is true even though the starting and target enzymes have common three-dimensional proteinfolds and active-site chemistries— just no shared reaction [29].5 Getting seven specific changes in a gene 1,200 nucleotides long is a 1-in-10^22 event, not a 1-in-10,000 event. Even then it is by no means clear that significant changes in gene function can be had with just seven base substitutions."

In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect.  But six million years is the entire time allotted for the transition from our last common ancestor with chimps to us according to the standard evolutionary timescale. Two hundred and sixteen million years takes us back to the Triassic, when the very first mammals appeared. One or two mutations simply aren’t sufficient to produce the necessary changes— sixteen anatomical features—in the time available. At most, a new binding site might affect the regulation of one or two genes.

As for the hominids, some overzealous scientists have been rebuked by University of California (Berkeley) paleontologist Tim White, as he attempts to rein in the tendency of fossil hunters to classify every find as a new species.  He said, "To evaluate the biological importance of such taxonomic claims, we must consider normal variation within biological species. Humans (and presumably their ancestors and close relatives) vary considerably in their skeletal and dental anatomy. Such variation is well documented and stems from ontogenetic, sexual, geographic, and idiosyncratic (individual) sources."

Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987)

One of the world's leading authorities on australopithecines, British anatomist, Solly Lord Zuckerman has concluded (based on specimens aged much younger than Lucy) that australopithecines do not belong in the family of man. He wrote "I myself remain totally unpersuaded. Almost always when I have tried to check the anatomical claims on which the status of Australopithecus is based, I have ended in failure."

Evolution is presented as fact, yes, but there is not a consensus.  There is an entire site dedicated to scientists who wish to sign their scientific dissent from the darwinian model of evolution.  http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ and the 22 page list (updated and released June 2015) of scientists who publicly denounce the Darwinian model can be viewed here:  http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...oad&id=660

This is bold because as soon as they do this they are essentially written off as intellectuals in the scientific community.  Look at atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel for example:  http://news.nationalpost.com/holy-post/w...-darwinism

Evolution as presented for the origin of all species has enormous gaps and holes and scientists fill those gaps with assumptions and presuppositions that it must be a natural process but it is far from "proven" or "consensus", irregardless of religious beliefs, but based on pure science.

This does NOT mean that creation theory can be proven or must be true. I'm not saying that. Yes it is what I believe, but I'm pointing out what I see the problem evolution theory has.

Take a look through this... damn I love talk origins!

Kingpin, what mechanism do you think there is which prevents small mutations from adding up to species changes?

Y--r ar-um-nt is es-ent-ally that g-p- in evi-en-e a-e ev-de-ce th-t e-olu-ion c-n no- h-ve h-ppe-ed. Yet you can read that sentence even through the gaps, and get the point.

Inference is part of the process of scientific understanding.

(September 16, 2015 at 5:00 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: In the case of the Eucharist ceremony, it is the Catholics who have the magic beliefs, not most protestants.  And in that instance, it is far more insane than the idea of a being who can create the universe out of nothing decided to create animals fully formed.

Lutherans, some Anglicans, some Episcopalians and some Methodists are examples of Protestants who believe that Jesus is present in the sacrament in a real way.

And the Orthodox, of course.

(September 16, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(September 16, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: God established an infallible Church

This is an empirically false statement.

Care to expand on that?

(September 16, 2015 at 6:20 pm)Shuffle Wrote: What would of stopped him from not using evolution? Maybe not wasting billions of years for a product he could have made in a split second.

Nothing. He could have done it either way...even to the point of putting dinosaur bones in the ground for us to find. If He really wanted to.

I just think the evidence suggests that He chose to use evolution.

(September 16, 2015 at 5:29 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: There is no God creature in this solar system.

Finally. Progress.

(September 16, 2015 at 7:11 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(September 16, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: This is an empirically false statement.

Care to expand on that?

Do you not know the history of your own church?

Quote: In February 1616, a special Theological Advisory Committee determined that the heliocentric theory contradicts the Catholic faith. With regard to the claim that the sun lies motionless at the center of the world, the committee determined that it is: "Philosophically (i.e., scientifically) foolish and absurd, and is considered official heresy because it explicitly contradicts the meaning of Scripture in many places, in terms of the verbal significance of the words and in terms of the accepted interpretation and understanding of the Church Fathers and the Doctors of Theology."The claim that the earth revolves around the sun was considered only "a mistake of faith."

Source: http://muse.tau.ac.il/museum/galileo/pro...lioce.html

Also, check out:

Quote:In March, after the Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, the papal Master of the Sacred Palace, Congregation of the Index, and Pope banned all books and letters advocating the Copernican system, which they called "the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to Holy Scripture."[87][88] In 1618 the Holy Office recommended that a modified version of Copernicus' De Revolutionibus be allowed for use in calendric calculations, though the original publication remained forbidden until 1758.[88]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentr...ernicanism

"Infallible church", my ass.

Pardon me while I point and laugh.

Don't get me started on the moral turpitude of the priests who preach to you. "Infallible"! *snort*

(September 16, 2015 at 7:34 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(September 16, 2015 at 7:11 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Care to expand on that?

Do you not know the history of your own church?

Quote: In February 1616, a special Theological Advisory Committee determined that the heliocentric theory contradicts the Catholic faith. With regard to the claim that the sun lies motionless at the center of the world, the committee determined that it is: "Philosophically (i.e., scientifically) foolish and absurd, and is considered official heresy because it explicitly contradicts the meaning of Scripture in many places, in terms of the verbal significance of the words and in terms of the accepted interpretation and understanding of the Church Fathers and the Doctors of Theology."The claim that the earth revolves around the sun was considered only "a mistake of faith."

Source: http://muse.tau.ac.il/museum/galileo/pro...lioce.html

Also, check out:

Quote:In March, after the Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, the papal Master of the Sacred Palace, Congregation of the Index, and Pope banned all books and letters advocating the Copernican system, which they called "the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to Holy Scripture."[87][88] In 1618 the Holy Office recommended that a modified version of Copernicus' De Revolutionibus be allowed for use in calendric calculations, though the original publication remained forbidden until 1758.[88]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentr...ernicanism

"Infallible church", my ass.

Pardon me while I point and laugh.

Don't get me started on the moral turpitude of the priests who preach to you. "Infallible"! *snort*

None of what you have written above has ANYTHING to do with the doctrine of infallibility.