As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution

[o_mlly]

Do you consider geology and physics to be unreliable (in the context of your original post re: determining age of things in the Earth)?

I consider both sciences to be provisional. I would argue that the hard experimental science of physics is more reliable than the component of geology that studies the history of earth. You could argue otherwise but only in another thread.

 

[o_mlly]

Nope, they are correct on that point.

Do you think that evolutionary science teaches otherwise?

Is bacteria a bug?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you asking for the mechanics of soul creation? God wills the human soul into existence. The corporeal substance changes from non-living to living. The exact moment of ensoulment is unknown. However, at the moment the substance evidences any property specific to living organisms then ensoulment has occurred. We also know that that corporeal substance left to its natural development will be nothing other than a human being.

Cool... So how do you know this? How can we check that you're not making it up? What is a soul? how does it work? what does it do? How can we check that it exists and/or is doing what it is supposed to do? How can we check that your version of ensoulment is correct and not some alternative version?

So many questions...

 

[pitabread]

Is bacteria a bug?

In colloquial usage bacteria are sometimes called "bugs". However, usually when people say "bug", they are referring to insects.

If you really want to be clear, probably best to use the proper biological nomenclature for whatever organisms you are talking about.

 

[pitabread]

I consider both sciences to be provisional. I would argue that the hard experimental science of physics is more reliable than the component of geology that studies the history of earth. You could argue otherwise but only in another thread.

I'm not looking to argue the point. I'm trying to understand what you consider reliable or not with respect to science.

 

[Astrid]

Is bacteria a bug?

"A" bug? "Bacteria" is plural.
Bugs are insects.
Equivocation is a fallacy.
Nothing but bacteria has evolved from bacteria.

You managed to get four errors into four words.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I consider both sciences to be provisional. I would argue that the hard experimental science of physics is more reliable than the component of geology that studies the history of earth. You could argue otherwise but only in another thread.

Regarding rock dates:

Are you challenging the nuclear decay rates, or mechanisms?

Are you challenging the studies of mineral formation and properties?

Are you challenging the state of contaminant migration and diffusion in minerals?

Because these things are critical to the usefulness of the rock dating techniques.

 

[Astrid]

Cool... So how do you know this? How can we check that you're not making it up? What is a soul? how does it work? what does it do? How can we check that it exists and/or is doing what it is supposed to do? How can we check that your version of ensoulment is correct and not some alternative version?

So many questions...

In fairness, he didn't make it up himself,
but let others make it up for him.

 

[o_mlly]

...

This is simply an exercise in rational critical thinking.

You made the claim that creation is a 'superior explanation' - if you don't agree with my criteria for a good explanation, either criticise them or give your own criteria - IOW define what you mean by 'explanation'.

An exercise in rational thinking on the plausibility that evolution theory fully explains the human being?

OK. To disagree productively, we must first agree. As a rational thinker, which First Principles of Philosophy do you accept and how do you define those principles?

 

[AV1611VET]

Cool... So how do you know this? How can we check that you're not making it up? What is a soul? how does it work? what does it do? How can we check that it exists and/or is doing what it is supposed to do? How can we check that your version of ensoulment is correct and not some alternative version?

So many questions...

Man ... science must be a drag when it comes to the things of God.

 

[o_mlly]

Regarding rock dates:

Are you challenging the nuclear decay rates, or mechanisms?

Are you challenging the studies of mineral formation and properties?

Are you challenging the state of contaminant migration and diffusion in minerals?

Because these things are critical to the usefulness of the rock dating techniques.

I'm going to again ask that you stay on topic. I will allow for the sake of argument that the earth is any age you care to assert.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Man ... science must be a drag when it comes to the things of God.

God is the greatest drag to science.

 

[Ophiolite]

Is bacteria a bug?

Bacteria are bugs in some colloquial speech. So, yes, in casual discussion one might say a bacterium is a bug. Since "bug" can also refer to beetles, or insects, or any such creepy-crawly, again in colloquial speech, you see why it helps in a discussion on science to attempt to use technical vocabulary to minimise ambiguity.

Now to address your query about the Bug to Man meme. Humans are eukaryotes, which is to say our DNA is located in a cell nucleus. The eukaryotes are thought to have evolved from archaea, which are the third domain of life- Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya. So, man is not thought to have evolved from bugs, unless you wish to include the archaea in the colloquial group "bugs". I'm not fussed either way since I wouldn't nornally choose to talk about bugs in a scientific discussion because of its imprecision.

 

[pitabread]

I'm going to again ask that you stay on topic. I will allow for the sake of argument that the earth is any age you care to assert.

For clarity, this whole line of discussion started from your own claim regarding interpretation of evidence from past events and your insinuation that there is unreliability regarding dating methods.

And given your own claim, "Prior to DNA, evolution theory relied primarily on the historiographical sciences of geology, paleontology and archaeology to support its claims", and that you state you're trying to demonstrate that evolutionary science is "not good science", the reliability of dating methods seems pertinent to the discussion.

 

[AV1611VET]

God is the greatest drag to science.

Miracles will do that.

 

[o_mlly]

This:

Q: 'So now we're throwing physics and geology into the mix of unreliable science in your view?'
A: 'All science.'

Nope. You misquote the original post. There was no period; no period, no sentence. Good try though. Could we move on from the trivial? Got any arguments?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm still waiting on any evidence of creation.

 

[o_mlly]

o [1] how do you know this? [2] How can we check that you're not making it up? [3] What is a soul? [4] how does it work? [5] what does it do? [6[ How can we check that it exists and/or is doing what it is supposed to do? [7] How can we check that your version of ensoulment is correct and not some alternative version?

1) Divine revelation, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the constant teaching of the Magisterium.
2) Read the source material as listed in #1
3) The animating principle of the human person
4) The human soul works through its functioning human body.
5) Same answer as #3
6) Examine a corpse and a living person
7) Offer a rational alternative
Anything else?

 

[o_mlly]

Where's the overlap with science that we can check? You said there was an overlap. Where is it?

It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted (Humani Generis).​

 

[o_mlly]

Speciation means that the evolution of a population has progressed to the degree that it is considered ..

The use of the passive voice leaves one wanting. Who does the "considering"? Once "considered", is it fixed? If not then your sources as evidence of direct observation of speciation are pretty much useless as evidence. And fundamental logic tells us that the first observation of a thing is not necessarily the first instance of a thing.