Evolution vs God


#21

Susanna: Too funny!! It’s the proverbial “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” argument! In logic, it’s called circular reasoning.


#22

Exactly!


#23

Another thing about their arguments is that they often use tautology. No matter what the evidence is found, it is used to support Evolution. Darwinian evolution is true in every interpretation and it is impossible to find evidence that would invalidate it.

Example: Charles Darwin said that evidence of sudden changes in organisms would invalidate his theory. Sudden changes were found in the the fossil record. The result was the creation of “Punctuated Equilibrium” to explain away the very evidence that Darwin himself said invalidated his theory.


#24

I am no genius, and I figured out half a century ago, that the Theory of Evolution was too far fetched to believe. One only needs common sense and the first law of biology, IOW, life begets life.


#25

[quote=“Susanna, post:20, topic:40512”]
I remember hearing something about - let me see if I can explain it the way I understood it - that a certain thing existed in a certain age, because it was found in a stratum from that age - then, that particular stratum was proven to be in that certain age, because that certain thing existed in it.

Did I make myself clear, or is my explanation of it even more muddled than the original presentation of it?
[/quote]I think they (now at least) use other means to date the object and/or the strata.

Like Carbon Dating . . . though THAT has some problems too, and is not entirely precise, and can sometimes be way way off.

But I don’t think the current method of dating relies upon ONLY one scheme . . . rather a “consensus” of several.

That STILL doesn’t make the “theory” a LAW, and there are still some substantial gaps. But I don’t hold dating as a major flaw. There are some other flaws that seem more serious to me. That’s why it’s STILL just a “theory”, and there are other “theories” that are just as worthy of consideration.

I happen to place a lot of credibility on SOME elements of TOE. But I don’t rule out a competing theory. The “real” thing is most probably some combination of most of the “theories” (not ALL though), though I haven’t considered what the ratios would be.


#26

I think different people/groups consider one thing or the other to be a valid evidence - but at that, they don’t agree even with one another. Or maybe it changes so rapidly that it just seems that way.


#27

[quote=“Susanna, post:26, topic:40512”]
I think different people/groups consider one thing or the other to be a valid evidence - but at that, they don’t agree even with one another
[/quote]That’s probably one of the reasons archaeologists switched to dating with multiple methods. There’s likely going to be at least ONE method that someone will agree with. Each can “pick” the method he/she agrees with and still disagree on the other methods with their associates, but still support TOE.


#28

Opponents of every religion in the world would say the same about the others. The Theory of Evolutionist I just that a theory and faith based religions are just that faith based. Neither side has the required evidence to say mine is unequivocally true and yours is not. IMO they are two peas in the same pod.


#29

Yawn


#30

Buddhism -1 // Tiny - 0

EAT IT!!


#31

But the theory of evolutionist insists that his “theory” is proven fact. I’ve seen that statement made on this site many times. But considering what the theory of evolution is - at the very least, Darwinism - it takes far and away more faith to believe that everything just “happened” - accidentally, at that - than to believe it was created by a superior being. After all, mankind are creators; we understand creating things. We cannot even imagine any of the things we create happening accidentally. So why can we not believe that we, too, were created? The only thing that stands in the way of that is that we think we are gods . . .


#32

I have seen only a few past members make that claim. They are not right and do not understand what a Theory is. For the rest of us, we know what a Theory is.


#33

Maybe “many times” was an exaggeration. But I have seen it a number of times.


#34

I will admit, this is a very confusing and tricky topic to cover. You either believe that evolution created mankind or God did. I believe God created mankind. It doesn’t make sense to me as to why most humans are now humans but there are also humans that never changed into humans and are therefore apes still. Why is this? If evolution was real, I would assume all apes would be humans. This is just an assumption though. In Catholicism, God put Adam and Eve on earth to live and to prosper. He told them not to touch the forbidden tree, but they did anyway. He banned them and because of what they did they were punished. And now we are punished also. Women have painful births and men have to work to get what they want. Evolution doesn’t seem plausible to me because it has a lot of faults. Evolution starts at nothing but with God it does start with something


#35

Evolution requires far greater faith than creation. I mean, if you believe there is an all-powerful God, isn’t it much easier to believe that he created everything than that it just happened accidentally? We are creators, too - that’s part of the “image of God” that we are created in. But, of course, even the greatest of our creations cannot even come close to God’s simplest creation.


#36

Natural selection is far from accidental. It is, in a way, “intelligent,” in that life that is better at living and procreating lives and procreates better, thus ensuring their genes are the ones spread the most through a population. The network of species and predators and prey all create a system in which life trends toward being better at living.


#37

In this video, rather than living and procreating, objects that are better at being clocks have a better chance at procreating than those that aren’t, and therefore, eventually, random samples trend toward a clock. It isn’t a perfect example since “being a clock” is not the same as “living and procreating,” but it illustrates a concept that natural selection is not random or accidental.


#38

It doesn’t make sense to me as to why most humans are now humans but there are also humans that never changed into humans and are therefore apes still. Why is this? If evolution was real, I would assume all apes would be humans.

This is not a worthy argument. Certain species of apes were not exposed to the same evolutionary forces as others. We do not live in a uniform environment.

In Catholicism, God put Adam and Eve on earth to live and to prosper. He told them not to touch the forbidden tree, but they did anyway. He banned them and because of what they did they were punished. And now we are punished also. Women have painful births and men have to work to get what they want. Evolution doesn’t seem plausible to me because it has a lot of faults. Evolution starts at nothing but with God it does start with something

Actually, Catholicism does not believe that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true. I personally can vouch for this: I was present at a sermon given by Pope Benedict XVI at the Easter Vigil in Rome back in 2011 in which he elucidated the Catholic Church’s position on evolution.

He said:

[The story of Creation] is the liturgy’s way of telling us that the creation story is itself a prophecy. It is not information about the external processes by which the cosmos and man himself came into being. The Fathers of the Church were well aware of this. They did not interpret the story as an account of the process of the origins of things, but rather as a pointer towards the essential, towards the true beginning and end of our being.

Benedict XVI’s sermon for the Easter Vigil | Fr. Z’s Blog
Easter Vigil - Holy Saturday, 23 April 2011

In fact, it was a priest Mgr. Georges Lemaître, working at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who first put forth our prevailing scientific model for how the earth cosmologically and astronomically came to be.

And now we are punished also. Women have painful births and men have to work to get what they want. Evolution doesn’t seem plausible to me because it has a lot of faults.

And yet, people still have babies…

Also, that we must work to get what we want is part of the theory of evolution. That is a key component of the mechanism of natural selection: we must compete for limited resources, we must work for them, and if we fail, we die.

Evolution starts at nothing but with God it does start with something

Evolution does not start at nothing. Evolution starts at a cauldron of ingredients prime for creation of certain molecules and structures, which through various mechanisms evolved into what we know today as life.

God does not “start”. God perpetually exists. He has no beginning or end. That is a large part of how I rationally justify my faith (though I acknowledge that my desire to rationalize my faith weakens it).

Evolution requires far greater faith than creation. I mean, if you believe there is an all-powerful God, isn’t it much easier to believe that he created everything than that it just happened accidentally? We are creators, too - that’s part of the “image of God” that we are created in. But, of course, even the greatest of our creations cannot even come close to God’s simplest creation.

No, literal creationism, “Young Earth” creationism, is a by product of a bygone age. It is like using leeches as medical instruments: perhaps correct in spirit but ridiculous in practice, a result of a lack of knowledge among its adherents.

So why can we not believe that we, too, were created? The only thing that stands in the way of that is that we think we are gods . . .

Acceptance of evolution as the best explanation for a wide range of biological phenomena does not imply a rejection of Divine authority or power, nor does it imply an assumption of Divine roles for humanity. Evolution places no importance on human involvement, and brings us down a few notches in terms of importance: according to evolution and biology, we are no different in significance than apes, dogs, trees, amoebas or dyneins.


#39

Cynicaloptimist, I do believe that the catholic church believes in a literal Adam and Even if im not mistaken.

Adam, Eve, and Evolution | Catholic Answers

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

Remember that Popes are allowed to have personal opinion, but when they are teaching from the chair of Peter (official doctrine and dogma thats been defined) that is virtually etched in stone and from what Ive read in the official Catholic position is that we do in fact believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

Acceptance of evolution as the best explanation for a wide range of biological phenomena does not imply a rejection of Divine authority or power, nor does it imply an assumption of Divine roles for humanity. Evolution places no importance on human involvement, and brings us down a few notches in terms of importance: according to evolution and biology, we are no different in significance than apes, dogs, trees, amoebas or dyneins.

You are correct on that, but the version of evolution that is put out these days is darwinian evolution

But the Catholic church teaches as part of their doctrine a belief in a real Adam and Eve, not a figurative one.

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

Adam, Eve, and Evolution | Catholic Answers

I was a theistic evolutionist for most of my life until 5 years ago when I saw that evolution cannot account for the specified information that resides within the DNA strand.

this was one of the things that lead me away from theistic evolution to intelligent design.
Dr. Stephen Meyer: Chemistry/RNA World/crystal formation can’t explain genetic information - YouTube

watch minutes 4 through 8 very carefully as they had a huge impact on my view of evolution. That and of course macroevolution.

Theistic evolutionists believe that God front loaded all the information into DNA, so its a kind of intelligent evolution or IDvolution.
This was what I believed before my switch to intelligent design.


#40

That may be trekky but natural selection has never been shown to produce new information, it only selects, so it is useless to tell us how the information got there. Remember that there needs to be new information ahead of time before natural selection does its thing so natural selection alone cant explain the explosion of biological information, and neither does random mutation, as 80 years of fruit fly experiments have shown. They bombarded them with harsh environmental conditions and radiation to even speed up the rate of mutation but in the end of what amounted to be 1 million years of fruit fly generations, the fruit flies became … welll… Just fruit flies and nothing more.

There is absolutely nothing intelligent about natural selection because it creates no new information.