The theory of evolution HOAX

[Crossless2.0]

Well then, the Catholic church would be wrong on the Adam and Eve claim.

How can evolution be ridiculous, when it has been observed, in the wild and in the lab?

READ the articles on creationresearch.org! If you really hold a true position, it should not make you fear to read articles from the opposition in the least. Yet I see people in this forum saying they refuse to read the articles. We all know why that is - because when the articles totally destroy the theory of evolution, *POOF*, you have no choice but to believe in God. It's the typical cowardly atheist response.

Most of us actually have lives and important things to do. The little free time I get to read is going to be spent reading books worth the effort. If you're so convinced that these articles represent solid evidence that overturns ToE, then why don't you pick some of your favorites and give them a fair paraphrase here. I'm sure some will bother to read the articles in question (if only to check your characterization of the arguments presented), while others may simply engage with your posts, if they're in the mood to spar.

While you're at it, perhaps you can explain why such scientific bombshells are only known of in fundamentalist and fringe-Catholic circles, rather than throughout the scientific community at large. Overturning the central organizing theory of the biological sciences is sort of a big deal. It's odd that only people with a particular approach to the Bible or the Koran seem able to "see" the overwhelming evidence you claim is there. After all, there are plenty of scientists who are self-described Christians who don't agree with you. I doubt they are in on the Great Atheist Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth.

Also, what are your qualifications for judging the merits of these papers versus those published by actual evolutionary scientists? Your questionable approach to how the Bible should be read doesn't count.

[Alex K]

Well, need we say more after looking at that list of scientists with PhD's?? Condemning them all across the board is as absurd as it gets.

Like most PhDs on this list, I am a physics PhD, and I can tell you with certainty that in my capacity as a physics PhD, I am not qualified to contradict actual evolutionary biologists on the theory of evolution by natural selection. That'd be as ridiculous as a biology PhD contradicting CERN concerning their Higgs boson search.

[Catholic_Lady]

Ok, I disagree with you about creationism pabsta, but I don't think you're a poe anymore.

My theory personally is that at some point between apes and the human form as it is now (very very close but not quite), God granted "human souls" to one male and one female (Adam and Eve), in the form of intelligence to recognize morality.

I guess scientifically you could explain that as the first neuron/brain connection, or whatever it would be, which made the difference between an innocent animal and a human who is able to understand right from wrong, thus attaining moral free will.

And I think that is an allegory for explaining the change from simple mammalian thinking to self aware sentient thinking.

I know you and the Catholic church make use of allegorical interpretations.  How do you decide when to go literal and when not?  It does seem that the trend over the history of the Catholic church is toward ever more allegorical interpretation, doesn't it?

Well, we as Catholics do believe in a literal soul. But I think the allegorical/literal kind of intertwine in this case.     

There were biological/chemical changes going on in the brain when it finally evolved enough to have moral self awareness, correct? That's the science side of things. 

But in the religion side of things, I think this self awareness brought on moral responsibility for our actions, aka, moral accountability from God. This accountability and moral self awareness is what differentiates our souls from those of the other animals, who, unlike us, are still completely innocent creatures.    

So basically, what an atheist only sees as moral self awareness, we see as a deeper thing. We see it as not only self awareness due to a more evolved brain, we believe that with such self awareness comes a soul that is different and more accountable from that of other animals. And we believe there was a first female and a first male to have acquired that: Adam and Eve.  

The story of creation in Genesis used to be viewed as literal. Now a days the Church accepts evolution as a real possibility, and so a Catholic is free to take either a literal or allegorical approach to Genesis. The general consensus is to take the allegorical approach (heck, we even learned evolution in catholic school), but there are Catholics out there who still adhere to a literal approach, and they are permitted to do so. However, regardless of whether we take a literal or allegorical approach to Genesis, as Catholics we still believe that God is the Father of all creation. That is not allegory. I suppose you can say that's where the line gets drawn in this case.

[Minimalist]

I really don't care what you have a PH D in....as long as it is in a recognizable discipline from an accredited school.  If you have one of those and STILL believe in fucking Adam and Eve or Noah's Fucking Flood then you are just a flaming fucking idiot.  A degree in geology is not needed to know that there was no world covering flood 3000 years ago.

[Amarok]

1. So he ignores the fact I pointed out a PhD is meaningless if one does not apply scientific principles to ones studies . Something creationist PhDs don't do . The fact they can't even get a paper published in proper peer is one profound sign of this.  

2. Creationism is not science it's not scientific even if there scientists who accept it.

3. My atheism has nothing to do with evolution. It could be shown wrong and creationism would  still be bunk . And god would just be an assertion .

4. Presumes what I have or have not read . As well presumes that I don't know why it's wrong. Presumes I have not counter literature .  

5. Ignores the far larger list of scientists I presented with PhDs. And I did not even get into the number of peer reviewed papers published . That disagree with his contention .

Ultimately what I got was an angry rant .And baseless accusations .

[ohreally]

At least you have your topic in the correct section. You have nothing to post in the science section because there is no alternative to evolution.

[Amarok]

At least you have your topic in the correct section.  You have nothing to post in the science section because there is no alternative to evolution.

True did not notice that

[Anomalocaris]

If you needed heart surgery who would you want to do it, a cardiac surgeon or Bob the Plumber?

Will Bob wave my deductible?

Remind him your insurance will cover PVC pipes so he doesn't need to use lead pipes when doing your triple bypass.

[Iroscato]

Well then, the Catholic church would be wrong on the Adam and Eve claim.

How can evolution be ridiculous, when it has been observed, in the wild and in the lab?

READ the articles on creationresearch.org! If you really hold a true position, it should not make you fear to read articles from the opposition in the least. Yet I see people in this forum saying they refuse to read the articles. We all know why that is - because when the articles totally destroy the theory of evolution, *POOF*, you have no choice but to believe in God. It's the typical cowardly atheist response.

WHO ARE YOU CALLING A POOF?! FITE ME IRL 1V1 SCRUB

[LastPoet]

Huh? The whole thing about a poe is that we are not ever sure...

But you can kind of look at the evidence and make an educated guess. Sure, we may never know, but at least we didn't jump to a conclusion without doing our due diligence.

Yes, it is more of the same. Being here for 7 years now, I have grown a bit apathetic regarding religion and those fools that follow it. They are still soylent green and above all else, they are more than what their religion defines them to be. Human beings.

As a Mod, I obey the forum rules (and kiss tibs bunghole according to some sources, shell might become jealous)

We have to rely on the forum members to devout their time in better pursuits than those just baiting for a .'fight'.