More proof Evolution is not true

[Joshua G.]

That obnoxious black box only speaks to Atheism, but not to evolution. Regardless of if Evolution is compatible or not with Christianity, Christians who believe in evolution do not believe that anything happened for no reason. They explicitly believe that the Big Bang, evoultion, primordial sludge, monkeys forming imposable thumbs etc happened by the hand of God through nature adn with a plan in mind. Good theology or bad, it is still theology that takes a personal, Real and omnipotent God 100% into account.

I hate red herrings, especially when they come from a pov I sympathize with.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Also this "everyone who doesn't agree with me is ignorant" argument is really old and petty, it's also a common tactic of atheists when it comes to attacking Christians in general, so it's unfortunate you're trying to use it.

And yet, this is exactly what you're saying-everyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant...

 

[Root of Jesse]

I always find this point interesting. All of us except for liberal denominations believe that we are interpreting the Bible correctly using our own method. We all accuse the other side of treating the Bible like a salad bar. But no one has the monopoly on claiming to take the Bible at its word.

We are free to interpret how we want to interpret, as long as it doesn't contradict what the Magisterium says. Example: You're not free to interpret "I am the bread of life" to mean "I am the chicken salad of life." What we Catholics have is an authoritative body to explain how we should accept things like the different creation accounts, the geneology of Jesus, etc. The Magisterium gives the text a context so there is no pretext.

 

[Aeneas]

okay, it is an unproven theory

Um, it has been proven... Change in allele frequencies over time is proof of evolution.

nothing like Gravity. You may have gotten on semantics, but when you see that evolutionary theory is built in large part on politics and not sound science, it's rather disheartening. I am not saying that there is no science to it. I am also not saying that such a theory is incompatible with Christianity. I'm not threatened by the possibility of evolution being true or not and I don't care if one holds it or not. What I do care is when people desecrate science and make it less meaningful by abusing what observable fact is.

And we have observed evolution. Did you not know that?

The fact is that evolution from species to species has never been observed.

Sure it has: Some More Observed Speciation Events

I don't know why speciation is held up as a golden standard anyways.

That is only a theory of what "must" have happened to connect this to that. But just becuase we can only imagine one way to connect fossil records does not make it fact unless we can actually observe it. It may make it plausible or the most plausible theory.

Ok. Fossilization now?

Also, it may well be the most plausible theory for an Atheist for they are self-prohibited from considering anything beyond nature.

correction: "most plausible theory for a scientist".

Science has come to a point that it does not allow for the theory that perhaps a supreme being was involved.

Duh, because there is no scientific evidence of a supreme being having been involved.

One might say to that, "No, it's just that science has to limit itself that way because it is only about the observable natural universe... it doesn't deny what is beyond it's scope". But a scientist should be cogniscent that the answer to the question they pose is perhaps not answerable with natural theory.

Possibly. There is no reason to suppose that in this case, however.

That doesn't mean they can't try to make the best natural theories possible, but what science does is completely dismisses that it is even possibility that there is someother explanation. If scientists are out to find truth then they should respect that in some instances, it is possible that a theologian may have the answer they are never able to reach and respect that as a plausible answer.

Science doesn't attack theology, so we're golden on this point.

Evolutionary theory seeks to fill in the blanks... big blanks. And that's fine. That's good science. It is not good science to pretend that there are no blanks being filled in with pure theory. Just because it might be the BEST theory out there does not mean it can never be topped with something else... unless thsoe blanks are not blanks and have been objectifiably obsrerved.

Of course. Ironically, when those blanks do get filled in, Creationists usually raise a storm over how "science was wrong" and try to claim that filling in the blanks somehow invalidates evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theorists are no less dogmatic than a baptist fundamentalist is in regards to the literal creation story. The only difference is that the latter is honest about that fact.

I would say you are wrong. Science is based on data, and the data supports evolution.

But, evolution has become such a religion that those who sign on are generally quite fundamentalist about it and unable to hear. Again, I have no problem with evolution and it does not threaten my faith. I believed in it for about a decade. Now, I'm quite agnostic on it.

Unable to hear, because Creationists frankly don't generally have anything worthwhile to say from a scientific standpoint.

 

[Joshua G.]

We are free to interpret how we want to interpret, as long as it doesn't contradict what the Magisterium says. Example: You're not free to interpret "I am the bread of life" to mean "I am the chicken salad of life." What we Catholics have is an authoritative body to explain how we should accept things like the different creation accounts, the geneology of Jesus, etc. The Magisterium gives the text a context so there is no pretext.

I was just furthering your point. Catholics and Orthodox often have to hear Protestants accusing them of not taking the Bible seriously. My point was that Protestants don't have a monopoly of believing the Word of God is inerrant. We believe that too. We go about it in a different way, but none of us INTEND to circumvent the Word of God.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I was just furthering your point. Catholics and Orthodox often have to hear Protestants accusing them of not taking the Bible seriously. My point was that Protestants don't have a monopoly of believing the Word of God is inerrant. We believe that too. We go about it in a different way, but none of us INTEND to circumvent the Word of God.

Right, I knew that. I was doing a Scott Hahn...sometimes he sounds like he's disagreeing when he's agreeing...I probably should have just said "Amen to that!"

 

[Root of Jesse]

Um, it has been proven... Change in allele frequencies over time is proof of evolution.



And we have observed evolution. Did you not know that?



Sure it has: Some More Observed Speciation Events

I don't know why speciation is held up as a golden standard anyways.



Ok. Fossilization now?



correction: "most plausible theory for a scientist".



Duh, because there is no scientific evidence of a supreme being having been involved.



Possibly. There is no reason to suppose that in this case, however.



Science doesn't attack theology, so we're golden on this point.



Of course. Ironically, when those blanks do get filled in, Creationists usually raise a storm over how "science was wrong" and try to claim that filling in the blanks somehow invalidates evolutionary theory.



I would say you are wrong. Science is based on data, and the data supports evolution.



Unable to hear, because Creationists frankly don't generally have anything worthwhile to say from a scientific standpoint.

On the "science is based on data" point, no usually, nowadays, science is bent on making the data prove what the scientific body wants it to prove. See global warming.

 

[Aeneas]

On the "science is based on data" point, no usually, nowadays, science is bent on making the data prove what the scientific body wants it to prove. See global warming.

If you want to believe thousands of scientists are in conspiracy to commit fraud, go right ahead.

 

[Michie]

St. Albert the Great - The Church and Science Are Not at War

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/dan-burke/st.-albert-the-great-the-church-and-science-are-not-at-war#ixzz1e5WotrbX

 

[Joshua G.]

Um, it has been proven...



And we have observed evolution. Did you not know that?



Sure it has: Some More Observed Speciation Events

I don't know why speciation is held up as a golden standard anyways.



Ok. Fossilization now?



correction: "most plausible theory for a scientist".



Duh, because there is no scientific evidence of a supreme being having been involved.



Possibly. There is no reason to suppose that in this case, however.




Science doesn't attack theology, so we're golden on this point.




Of course. Ironically, when those blanks do get filled in, Creationists usually raise a storm over how "science was wrong" and try to claim that filling in the blanks somehow invalidates evolutionary theory.



I would say you are wrong. Science is based on data, and the data supports evolution.



Unable to hear, because Creationists frankly don't generally have anything worthwhile to say from a scientific standpoint.

I'm not a Creationists. Again, I am not opposed to Creationism or Evolution.

As for mutations in DNA (which is what I was talking about) there is a lot of data to suggest that whenever it mutates, it mutates in such a way that either, does not stick around after so many gernerations and is harmful to the procreation of the species itself or at least does not help it.

But we can go tit for tat on science all day. I am not a scientist. You are. But, from what I have read (I don't read Creationist material because I am not looking to be convinced either way) this is where I am able to stand which for now is in the middle with a sympathetic ear to the Fathers. Again, I know you won't take this into account (except PERHAPS for the fact I pointed it out) but I do not consider myself a Creationist. I am sympathetic to it, but I have no issue with dropping it tomorrow for something else as long as it does not hurt my faith (by the way, evolution did not hurt my faith). I will be fundamentalist and dogmatic about my faith.

The thing is that there are non-creationists who say that the science of evolution is flawed in very important parts. Because it is not a dogma for me as it is for you I do not have the essays I have read (most from atheists who do subscribe to evolution as a theory) in such a place where I could find them. If you study this profusely as it seems you have then you may have come across them and either read them with an open mind or discounted them because the scientists you respect most told you they were dumb.

There is only one person (who I think is a creationist but he doesn't seem to be concerned with evolution being compatible or not with Christianity) I have read and been impressed with and his Name, I beleive, is Philip Johnson. he brings up good points, but that's important. What's important is that we stand behind evolution at all costs.

Here's the thing with science. Real science does not have to observe God.. it can't. it doesn't claim to. But, if it is trying to come to a solution, it needs to admit that A Supreme Being or unnatural unobservable force could be the reason. It doesnt (nor can it) have to explore that theory but it does have to acknowledge that theory as plausible. However, what modern science says is that all things can be explained by science... maybe not today, but if we had enough time and resources we would see that everything has a natural explanation to it. That's what modern science says. You and I may agree that that is not what science has any right to say. It can say that we will do our best to explore all possible natural explanations, but in the end, it may be that the explanation is not natural at all. However, 99% of the evolutionary theorists that are considered to matter in the ivory tower of academia (the one's who write books that make it into universities and get essays that actually get published as well as the ones on the boards that decide what gets published and what does not) would plainly state that everything has a natural explanation to it. That necessarily cuts out a personal God who had anything to do with anything at any time. These scientists will not agree with you that it is possible that God created the big bang anymore than there is a spaghetti monster flying around the moon (that's what they will say). that's different, very different, from saying "It's possible and we can't discount that, but as scientists we can't explore that either".

That's a problem.

Now, I know I will not convince you because it is difficult to tell anyone that their dogma is incorrect because we do not only depend on natural proof to believe a dogma but faith as well.

I will say that IF one is to be dogmatic about our origens then they should be creationist becuase at least they are humbling their minds before the Fathers who, spiritually, will not lead them astray. Dawkins and his followers will spiritually lead anyone to ruins. They may also lead you to the correct view on science and how exciting it will be for them to discuss how right they were and how wrong those silly baptists were.

Before you throw a fit, I am not saying that tehy are not going to heaven because they believed in evolution. As I said, I don't care and I don't believe God does.

 

[Joshua G.]

St. Albert the Great - The Church and Science Are Not at War

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/dan-burke/st.-albert-the-great-the-church-and-science-are-not-at-war#ixzz1e5WotrbX

The Church and real science are not at war. But the Church and Modern Science are increasingly at war because Modern Science has become a cult. Real Science --open minded to all possiblities-- is increasingly being rpacticed by scientists who can't get published, can't get jobs at leadning universities and so on.

St. Albert may have been right, but we live in a different time.

 

[Michie]

The Church and real science are not at war. But the Church and Modern Science are increasingly at war because Modern Science has become a cult. Real Science --open minded to all possiblities-- is increasingly being rpacticed by scientists who can't get published, can't get jobs at leadning universities and so on.

St. Albert may have been right, but we live in a different time.

I agree. But my point in posting it is that our Faith cannot be affected by science. Science certainly cannot be affected by Faith. There are some things that cannot be proven. But Faith & Science on repectable ground with one another can work hand in hand.

What is Science but the study of God's creative work?

 

[Joshua G.]

If you want to believe thousands of scientists are in conspiracy to commit fraud, go right ahead.

Yes, we believe they get together in secret meetings and look at ways they can cover up what they know to be false. they also laugh in evil ways and have a secret handshake. All this time I was thinking you were unable to understand the nuance of this conversation but it seems you get it really well! (that was sarcasm )

 

[Joshua G.]

I agree. But my point in posting it is that our Faith cannot be affected by science. Science certainly cannot be affected by Faith. There are some things that cannot be proven. But Faith & Science on repectable ground with one another can work hand in hand.

What is Science but the study of God's creative work?

Oh, I didn't see us at odds there. My point was that unfortunately, nowdays we can't assume that what is called Science is actually pure Science even though it is said to be so. Unfortunately the link you posted might not have as much relevance as it would have because it gives the Scientific community and underserved benefit of the doubt.

 

[Joshua G.]

On the "science is based on data" point, no usually, nowadays, science is bent on making the data prove what the scientific body wants it to prove. See global warming.

I am partial to global warming but on NPR there was scientist who came on (maybe 5 mos ago?) and talked about how careless much of the scientific community is in regards to Global Warming. he said that he does subscribe to GW but that data is often skewed or ignored or even fabricated... and he points out that it's not because these people want to create a conspiracy of falsehood, but they are so convinced they are right that they don't see the harm in skewing things towards what they already "know" to be true. His point is that science needs to stay out of debates. It needs to do it's thing. It needs to be unemotional and as unbiased as possible. it needs to always be open to all possibilities and not have an agenda ever. he points out also that in the end this craziness only hurts the "cause" (and he feels that science should be out to prove any "cause" except truth) because conservatives find this dishonesty and write all of it off. He wa not a fan of Al Gore's "Documentary" either

 

[Joshua G.]

Right, I knew that. I was doing a Scott Hahn...sometimes he sounds like he's disagreeing when he's agreeing...I probably should have just said "Amen to that!"

No, my fault. I totally get what you mean.

 

[Michie]

Oh, I didn't see us at odds there. My point was that unfortunately, nowdays we can't assume that what is called Science is actually pure Science even though it is said to be so. Unfortunately the link you posted might not have as much relevance as it would have because it gives the Scientific community and underserved benefit of the doubt.

We are on the same page here I think. Science is full of politics & political agendas. Corporate greed, etc. No, one must be aware that most science today is not pure science in the practice of science for science sake. Scientists themselves have complained about all this.

People have seemed to put their faith in science to the point that they are blinded to all else. Science is not infallible as some seem to believe considering the other factors involved.

Plus the fact that science is always revising, correcting & delving, into things it has already studied but new frontiers. These are different times we live in as compared to St. Albert's time but I do think people need to be discerning on these issues concerning faith & science. One really cannot ignore the other today.

 

[Joshua G.]

Science is not infallible as some seem to believe considering the other factors involved.

This is not to disagree with you becuase I know what you mean, but I think it is fair to perhaps say that Science is nothing more than a method of and forum for making observation and that it is therefore not fallible or infallible. It is just a collection of data a theories. What is fallible are human beings who claim things in the name of science when real science may have never said what the scientist is purporing.

So, I think Science is a VERY VERY VERY trustwrothy method for sooooo much as long as it is respected as it was intended.

I'm only restating the very point you were making in different words, it seems to me.

 

[Michie]

This is not to disagree with you becuase I know what you mean, but I think it is fair to perhaps say that Science is nothing more than a method of and forum for making observation and that it is therefore not fallible or infallible. It is just a collection of data a theories. What is fallible are human beings who claim things in the name of science when real science may have never said what the scientist is purporing.

So, I think Science is a VERY VERY VERY trustwrothy method for sooooo much as long as it is respected as it was intended.

I'm only restating the very point you were making in different words, it seems to me.

You are basically.

Gravity?

Infallible.

Thats the Law of Gravity.

As far as infallible, I'm speaking where there has been an established line of scientific thought & something comes along to change that or at least rectify it somehow.

There was an article I posted not too long ago where there were questions concerning Einsteins theory of relativity.

Here is a recent one:

New finding: was Einstein wrong?​

I just posted an article where brain activity has been found in those diagnosed in a persistive vegatative state.

Science is a continuous study. What we consider solved & established now may change somewhat at a future date under the constant study of science.

 

[ebia]

We have free will and the ability to think critically--something God has but monkeys do not. (Unless you're saying monkeys were made in the image of God?)
If you can only believe in things you can scientifically prove--how do you prove God exits? Or are you an atheist that thinks the bible is a book of myths and fairy tales?

none of that connects remotely to anything I've said or the point we were discussing.