Pope Benedict XVI opened a five-day Vatican meeting on evolution Friday morning by affirming that the world did not emerge out of chaos but was intentionally created by "the First Being."
"In order to develop and evolve, the world must first be, and thus have come from nothing into being,” the pontiff told an audience of 80 scientists, philosophers and theologians who have gathered for the conference, themed "Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life."
“It must be created, in other words, by the First Being who is such by essence," he added, according to Zenit News.
Benedict also went further to assert that the Creator was not only involved in the origins of the universe but continually sustains the development of life and the world.
The Creator, he said, “is the cause of every being and all becoming.”
The five-day conference, sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, is the latest initiative in an effort by the Vatican to promote dialogue between scientists and theologians. It also comes as debates over creation and evolution continue to rage on.
Like many Christians today, most members of the Catholic Church accept a brand of evolution known as "theistic evolution," which teaches that evolution was a tool used by God in the creation process.
During a press gathering in September, the Vatican said the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible and that it was even planning to hold a new interdisciplinary conference to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species next March in Rome.
The Catholic Church rejects a fundamentalist interpretation of the Creation story in Genesis, regarding the six-day account as an allegory. Though this view aligns with that of many Protestant Christians, many conservatives maintain the belief in a literal six-day Creation.
On Friday, Benedict said he saw no contradiction between believing in God and empirical science.
"There is no opposition between faith's understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences," he said, quoting from Popes Pius XII and John Paul II.
He also cited Galileo, whom, he said "saw nature as a book whose author is God in the same way that Scripture has God as its author."
"It is a book whose history, whose evolution, whose ‘writing’ and meaning, we ‘read’ according to the different approaches of the sciences, while all the time presupposing the foundational presence of the Author who has wished to reveal Himself therein," said the pontiff, according to Catholic News Service.
Following Benedict’s opening remarks, world renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, was scheduled to give a lecture Friday afternoon entitled "The Origin and Destiny of the Universe."
The physicist’s appearance was to mark his second at a Vatican scientific conference since 1981, when Hawking had attended at Vatican conference on cosmology.
Though he has never professed a belief in God, Hawking has never denied the existence of God either. Furthermore, in his 1988 publication, A Brief History of Time, Hawking discussed the possibility of a creator.
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator,” wrote Hawking, who later said that his theories show the possibility for the laws of science to dictate how the universe began.
The world renown physicist has also admitted to being religious, though not “in the normal sense," in an interview with Reuters last year.
"I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science," he told Reuters.
"The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws," he added.
Aside from Hawking, other notable scientists scheduled to speak at the five-day Vatican conference, which concludes Nov. 4, include Swiss chemist Albert Eschenmoser, who will discuss the search for the chemistry of life’s origin; U.S. biologist David Baltimore, who will examine evolution at the genetic level; and Greek biologist Fotis Kafatos, who will speak on evolution and the insect world.
Those addressing the theological and philosophical aspects of evolution will include Italian Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini and Father Stanley L. Jaki, a professor of physics and the philosophy of science at Seton Hall University.
RSS
Charles Darwin must had some concept of God upon observing the variety of species ,he discovered during his studies, the origin of life and matter had to have some natural existence,not the theory that something came out of nothing.
Science is the agent that God uses to convey natural knowledge of creation to human beings, now that human beings have just a fraction of that knowledge, the majority of the scientist are arrogant to deny the existence of the One who revealed this knowledge to them.
star2, sure, works for me. Just be sure next time that when it comes to objecting to it as an overall process it would be sensible to first understand those key terms and aspects I mentioned earlier. Obviously one can't walk a mile without first taking a step and one can't run before learning to crawl and walk.
For right now agentorange we'll just drop this, however, I will pick up with it again at a later date.
"Please explain how the prokaryotic cell evolved into the eukaryotic cell."
That would be the 'symbiogensis' and endosymbioatic terms I was reffering to earlier. Refer and research them, the evidence in the mtDNA in eukaryotic cells among other parts of a the eukaryotic cells demonstrate this. If you have objectiones/issues with the terms I put up earlier, please list, otherwise I think we're done here.
agentorangex
Please explain how the prokaryotic cell evolved into the eukaryotic cell.
Just as scientists work to prove science so is the creationist going to work to prove creation. These are two different viewpoints and passions wanting to be proven. Just as scientists are not afraid of creationists, creationists are not afraid of scientists. Both groups of folks are equally passionate about their work. We are people free to choice which viewpoint we align ourselves. Both may be necessary for the other.
Personally, creation v science should not be feared and both should be taught in the schools. They are both theory, in a sense and are worthy of equal time and discussion even if it does nothing more than convincing one of evolution or creation.
AgentOrange: You answered Star and yet I'm sure she doesn't care.
If you have objections to any of these, please explain: Natural selection, Genetic mutations (all types and key differences), Genetic drifting, Genetic isolation, Speciation (all 4 sub-types), Symbiogenesis, Endosymbiosis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
Star, these should be enough to give you a background, and above all don't be afraid to learn. I will be away till tues, I look forward to your reply.
"Where did DNA come from? "
DNA is derived from a more simplified genetic system which is based around heredity, mutations and natural selection, that being RNA.
Oh well, so much for 'crawling' at first eh? Look star, I welcome you wanting to learn on your own, but there comes a point where you must research and read about it on your own, I simply don't have the time to spoon feed it all to you.
As mentioned, it would be best if you can first demonstrate that you comprehend those key processes (not just the terms) I conveyed earlier, if you at least have this background it makes discussing the evolutionary path of the past 3.8 billion years more possible. Without it, it again would be like trying to teach calculus to an arrogant 3rd grader who refuses to aquatint themselves with the terminology and underpinning substance for calculus.
If, after reviewing such processes, you find objections to them then please lets tackle this first and then move onwards.
scits, if we knew that then we'd be Him!!
star,
Where did God come from?
agentorange
Where did DNA come from?
star: Why are you asking questions of which you don't care what the answers are? You believe God spoke it all into existance literally. So for you to ask these questions is meaningless. If you understood or cared about evolution one bit then maybe your questions would be good, but right now they just look disengenuous.
AO: For what it's worth, I had to check out what symbiogenesis is on Wikipedia.
Hmmmmm, 3 thumbs down, I would have thought such a analytical response on my part would warrant more of a reaction than simply the worthless thumbing mechanism. But I guess not, asking for response to objections to sybmiogenesis would be asking just a bit too much here.
"you don't know how it happened. "
Research 'symbiogenesis', and let me know what your objections are to it. It's a fundamental concept in evolutionary biology, and it explains how, why and from what, multicellular life emerged from. If you want specific books on it, just ask.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis
We do know most of how it happened, but we can't engage in this dialog of running at full speed until YOU personally comprehend the terminology, processes, and mechanisms involved (this would be the crawling part). Until you can grasp these and understand them well enough, it would be pointless in discussing anything else as it would be like trying to teach calculus to a 3rd grader. It requires a background to understand, that is where you come in to read and research about it. It can't be entirely spoon fed, I can simply point you in the direction.
So, do you understand how natural selection works, genetic mutations (and all their types and how some are more probable than others), genetic drifting, genetic isolation, symbiogenesis, speciation, etc.? And if not, (and lets be brutally honest here, you don't) why do you presume that you could comprehend the overall evolutionary history of 3.8 billion years without such background in such processes and mechanisms?
Your stance is like a 3rd grader asking to be taught calculus, but they are unwilling to learn the underpinning maths involved, it's entirely illogical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
agentorange, you don't know how it happened.
Perhaps you're not comprehending this, until you understand the processes (mutations, genetic drifting, natural selection, etc.) I can't explain the overall process to you as it wouldn't work, you need to understand the processes first. And, based on our discussions in the past, it's apparent you don't comprehend them, want to try again from the top?
Take your pick of the processes (so we can begin to crawl) and then you begin to understand them we can start the the walking, fair enough?
agentorange
God will explain how He created everything when you can explain the details on how the different forms of life we know about came from a single cell orgainsm.
ifeelfine72, "The History Channel "
Oh no!, not THC, it's the Devil! =)
"is there any compelling evidence that doesn't fit the current model of evolution"
Sure, but really only on the margins like the discussions between gradualism or punctuated equilibrium. But either way, gradual or punk eek, both would fit the underlying evidence and overall model of evolution quite well. Just one may support it better than the other. Ken Miller describes them as really being the same thing only viewed at different perspectives due to time constraints.
There is nothing like a fossil out of place, say like a rabbit in the Cambrian layers though, or evidence that DNA can't change, this type of evidence would be pretty hard to incorporate.
Some today point to temporal gaps of ignorance, ala instances of Irreducible Complexity', but these haven't held up under scrutiny.
"how and what components of the single cell orgainsm mutated"
How - via genetic mutation, that is the 'how'.
What - the components being, genes, were the 'what'.
Again, you asking for a 3.8 billion year history is absolutely absurd since you can't even crawl in the terminology yet, I could try to describe it, but it would gloss over you. It would be like trying to describe calculus to a 3rd grader. Can we start to crawl first by describing the processes and mechanisms like natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, genetic isolation and so on so as to have at least a background and then move onto other impending questions? This would of course be in assuming you comprehend and don't object to such descriptions.
"and all the other chromosomes came to be through these multiple mutations starting with the single cell organism."
This is an absurdly low level question, one in which you wouldn't even understand, you have to crawl first in understanding the terms and processes. This is sort of question we have limited evidence for, as most of the life as gone extinct and we've only begun the sequencing of species genomes, so obviously we're not at a point where a fined toothed answer can be given. We can however explain lines of descent from what branches of life still exist and from those which have organic genetic information left.
"Explain why each species has its own set of chormosomes; some with more chromosomes than others."
They do b/c that's what they inherited, and some have more chromosomes than others as a process of mutations like duplications.
"Surely you can explain how new genetic material came into existence when the original host, the single cell organism, didn't have it to begin with."
This would be a origins of life type question, but for this we do have some fairly good natural models on how it could have worked. These are 2 studies base on Harvard research.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtmbcfb_rdc
agentorange - Don't dodge my request. Your explanations are not good enough. Your answers to me sound like you really don't know how.
You want detailed answers on how God did it and I want detailed answers on how all forms of life came into being from a single cell orgamism through evolution.
ifeelfine72 - No, No, No. I want the details on how and what components of the single cell orgainsm mutated. How that mutated form of life changed. What components of the new mutated life mutated to form yet another new form of life, and etc. Some how an asexual single cell organism changed over time to form all the different kind of plants that exist, sky animals, water animals, land mammals, all forms reptitles, creeping things, and humans. I want a detail explanation starting with the earliest form of life and I want it from our resident CP expert in evolutionary biology Mr agentorange to give the details in how all that happened.
"You claim that life started out as a single cell organism which I have found out is asexual."
Star did some research, good. Also research ERV's, Human Chromosome 2 while you're at it, then come to explain them in their evidence, unlike dear jcfollower (pretender).
"I would like for you to identify the componenents of this earliest form of life"
Components? Organic carbon based life, good enough? Cynaobacteria sound familiar.
"describe in detail how it went from its initial state to all the different forms of life we see today."
You want me to explain something involving the course of 3.8 billion years on here? C'mon, be realistic. Star, why don't we start by learning to crawl before we run? Let's review what the evidence shows in biology, embryology, paleontology, genetics, and so on and then we can discuss microbial evolution. If I try to discuss it to you with no background in terms you'd be lost.
"Explain please which components mutated in this single cell organism"
The genes in the RNA, or a more simplified variant of RNA to be more exact. The genes is what mutated.
"how this formed a new type of life,"
Genetic mutations, reproduction, genetic isolation, how else?
"how that new life mutated to form yet a different type of life"
Ditto...
Star, for someone who will gladly take the overtly vague 'god had dun madeth story' you seem to only now want highly detailed examples. Wonder why you wont demand the same level of detail for your 'god dun hath makeuth' narration? Talk about holding one to a higher standard, sheesh.
AgentOrange: Agreed, but ERVs are a pretty compelling piece of that evidence. And to a lay person such as my self, they are a slam-dunk piece of the puzzle. Just out of curiosity, is there any compelling evidence that doesn't fit the current model of evolution?
star: The History Channel did a pretty good job of that in their series on evolution over the summer. An ancestor of the shark was apperently the first species to reproduce sexually the way we understand it now.
agentorange
You claim that life started out as a single cell organism which I have found out is asexual. I would like for you to identify the componenents of this earliest form of life and describe in detail how it went from its initial state to all the different forms of life we see today. Explain please which components mutated in this single cell organism, how this formed a new type of life, and how that new life mutated to form yet a different type of life, and so forth until you have the diversity of life we see today. Please explain the process on how the sex chromosomes came to be and all the other chromosomes came to be through these multiple mutations starting with the single cell organism. Explain why each species has its own set of chormosomes; some with more chromosomes than others. Surely you can explain how new genetic material came into existence when the original host, the single cell organism, didn't have it to begin with.
ifeelfine72, from what we know of how ERV's work in insertion and propagation, even to have a single one in a shared genomic location and to be some 98% identical across different species (remember point mutations do occur) without considering the concept of 'descent with modification', it would be very highly unlikely. Now to have all the ones we have with other extant apes, well it's practically impossible, the odds would be astronomic. But really, ERV's are but just one type of evidence supporting it, and it's more fair to review all evidence and then form a logical conclusion.
jcfollower: The Bible also commands us not to lie - you're no more a microbiologist than I am (in fact you appear to be less of one). If you believe DNA evidence is good enough to convict someone of a crime than you have to believe ERV's are good enough to "prove" evolution. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm looking in your general direction agentorange) but the odds of ERV placement are greater than that of a DNA blood sample convicting someone of a crime.
Let's Restore Integrity back into Science.
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
Wow!!! Pro Science states
Science and only science contributes to human progress.
Setting religion aside can you imagine a more arrogant statement. In one casual claim pro-science delegates all of the arts, literature, music, architecture, poetry, etc. to the dust heap of history as having made no contribution to human progress. Makes you wonder what pro sciences definition of progress is and more to the point what his/her definition of human is.
"I'm sorry to have upset you. It is clear that you are very knowledgable on scientific subjects."
Gee, thanks, I guess. I suppose it's equally clear then that you're not a microbiologist, nor do you even comprehend what epigenetics entails.
"The Bible commands us that 'with knowledge, get wisdom."
What, the same bible that commands you to also not lie or bear false witness as you've apparently lead onto doing with your 'I'm a microbiologist' bit?
"Although we must agree to disagree, I hope for you that you find that wisdom. We've beaten this dead horse to death. "
Whaaaaaa? Beaten what to death? We've not even started my young Padawan, why is it right when the learning gets going you type exit the train? So here's the recap of events....You ask for evidence, then when evidence is presented you ignore it and act like it wasn't mentioned, then finally you acknowledge it but don't fully respond to them or their implications, and then lastly instead of even attempting to explain said evidence you just exit out (fold) with your pretentious persona as if to imply you were right all along. Some nerve.
Go ahead, flag it again, I'll repost it again.
I'm sorry to have upset you. It is clear that you are very knowledgable on scientific subjects. Knowledge is a good thing.
The Bible commands us that 'with knowledge, get wisdom.' "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Fear meaning an awe and respect of...
Although we must agree to disagree, I hope for you that you find that wisdom. We've beaten this dead horse to death.
"The folks who don't agree with the belief in evolution just want a simple, logical, explanation that takes us from data, to the conclusion that everything in this entire, complex and magnificent universe came about by chance."
Quit moving the goal posts, good grief. Sorry, science can't be dumbed down, it's not going to be so simplistic and you asking for such a heavy existential question to be spoon fed in this forum is laughable. Evolution isn't all 'chance' either, there is that part about natural selection.
"If you don't get mad, and you gently explain it to our satisfaction, then we will consider it and decide if we agree with you."
How's about you first address the evidence I gave in ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 fusion and their implications in the first place. Waiting...
"Impuning our character and our education isn't gonna cut it. Stand and deliver."
I only insulted your education b/c you're a pretender trying to pretend you're a microbiologist when you're not. I delievered like an hour ago with the evidence for ERV's and such, so far not much from you other than 'they are interesting'.
The folks who don't agree with the belief in evolution just want a simple, logical, explanation that takes us from data, to the conclusion that everything in this entire, complex and magnificent universe came about by chance.
If you don't get mad, and you gently explain it to our satisfaction, then we will consider it and decide if we agree with you.
Impuning our character and our education isn't gonna cut it. Stand and deliver.
"ERV and chromosome 2 fusion are both interesting scientific discoveries. "
Ok, explain them and their indications then. You're rhetoric and antics mirror those of Sarah Palin.
"good science experimentation leads us to a conclusion."
Yep, and the conclusion here with those evidences is....common ancestry and evolution. If you disagree explain why.
ERV and chromosome 2 fusion are both interesting scientific discoveries. However, good science experimentation leads us to a conclusion. Bad science assumes a conclusion and crams every new finding into it.
jcfollower, again, be specific for what evidence you would deem sufficient and why.
"Because of my ignorance, I would like for you to explain them rather than provide weblinks"
In other words, you're not a microbiologist, in other words, you're a pretender. I gave the links as a reference for you, all you need to do is sit back, watch and review the articles cited and sourced in the vids, review some basic biology and you're up to speed. Think you can handle it jcfollower? Try that and come back with your objections.
Because of my ignorance, I would like for you to explain them rather than provide weblinks.
jcfollower,
"I think it would be helpful if you would take us through all of the 'support' that would lead us to 'believe' that evolution accounts for the 'origin of species."
(Sigh) Earlier I asked for SPECIFIC examples from you for what would be sufficient. B/c you lapsed and didn't provide any specifics I used some from genetics, that being ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 Fusion. Before we list MORE evidence, how's about you first address them?
You being a microbiology buff should certainly be able to understand the genetic ERV and human chromosome 2 evidence, right?
If these don't work, what about these instances of observed speciation?
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
I think it would be helpful if you would take us through all of the 'support' that would lead us to 'believe' that evolution accounts for the 'origin of species.' Please do this gently and kindly, we ignorant are so very fragile.
jcfollower,
Micro-biology huh, more like a liar, liar pants on fire. It's quite apparent with you rhetoric that you're not.
"You have data. You say that it proves evolution. It is merely data."
NO, I NEVER said it proves it, learn to read AND comprehend. I said it SUPPORTS it, and quite handsomely so, so much so that you likely have no clue on what it explains, thus why you can't even afford to offer any meaningful response to what the evidence shows. You wanted evidence, I gave them, now explain if you can.
"How the earth originated and how organisms originated cannot be observed."
Again, exemplifying why you're no microbiologist, as the theory of evolution neither deals with the origins of life or the origins of earth.
Evolutionary theory deals with the evidence related to the diversification of life, not the origins of life. It therefore makes a assumption that it existed already, it as a theory only attempts to explain how and why it's diversified over time.
"Therefore their origins are outside the realm of science and fall into the realm of speculation. If you decide which belief system explains them, that is an act of 'faith.'"
Again, origins of life and earth isn't evolution, got it?
You have data. You say that it proves evolution. It is merely data. Truth cannot be proven with science.
How the earth originated and how organisms originated cannot be observed. Therefore their origins are outside the realm of science and fall into the realm of speculation. If you decide which belief system explains them, that is an act of 'faith.'
"Linked them to prove that evolution is not a religion, you haven't."
Since when did evolutionary theory become a religion?
Evidence you have for this?
It's a realm of science, ya know, like micro-biology, it's no more a religion than gravitational theory or atomic matter theory are.
Religion affirms the beliefs in things supernatural, where is the supernatural in any science theory, let along the theory of evolution?
You got spunk, so you're not replying to evidence I presented, mkay, typical.
steveh20, I'm mainly speaking to natural disasters and the death, chaos, and destruction that would have resulted from them and the survival of the fittest dynamic.
Data you have. Findings you have. Linked them to prove that evolution is not a religion, you haven't.
"A lot of data has been collected and if we can just cram it into our cookie cutter of preconceived notions"
What part of relatively beneficial traits will be preserved over generations via natural selection is beyond comprehension?
Tell me if you disagree with any of these observed facts.
1) organisms reproduce with variation.
2) organisms will compete for resources with rivals and other species.
3) not all offspring from organisms from a single generation will reproduce (some will be food for other organisms, some die from disease, etc.) and consequently don't contribute to the next generations gene pool.
"Now please link the findings to proof of evolution."
Regrettably, the term 'proof' isn't used in science as it implies absolute, which in science no theories ever are by how they are tested against by the scientific method.
What would you consider as sufficient evidence
for it to be well supported? I mentioned ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 fusion (these certainly don't need links, they are readily found on the Internet, but ask and receive you will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Are they what you'd like? If
not, be specific please of what you'd expect and why you'd expect it.
I believe that epigenetics can account for both. Now please link the findings to proof of evolution.
I still say that we are both religious adherents, just different religions.
"I don't know of anyone ever witnessing natural selection."
The example I gave is a fine one, the part with the bacteria evolving an entirely new enzyme to breakdown and digest nylon. Don't like it, what about something more nostalgic, say Darwin's finches?
I don't know of anyone ever witnessing natural selection. A lot of data has been collected and if we can just cram it into our cookie cutter of preconceived notions.......
Prove that evolution is not based on faith.
jcfollower, "The problem we have is what to make of these observations"
What problem(s)? For what problem does evidence like ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 fusion involve? After all you're a microbiologist (student or professor?) and therefor it's fair to presume you'd be familiar with such evidence and what it indicates.
"If we move to theorizing from our hypothesis,"
It's moved, been moved, for many decades at least since the days of Darwin. First it's a hypothesis, then model, then theory.
"we must have observations based upon data gathered which are repeatable and tend only to point toward our theory."
I guess you're not familiar with studies using natural selection in producing a new enzyme in bacteria allowing for them to digest nylon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
"is natural selection the only possible conclusion from all of this data?"
I guess not, but to consider all other possibilities they too like natural selection would need to be supported by data, so far natural selection and other processes are at the backbone of evolutionary theory. If can provide any alternative which is as equally as testable as natural selection and explains more evidence, then by all means lets hear it.
I base my belief in God's creative ability on faith and not upon science. Human beings have learned a lot about how radioactive elements decay, how organisms are similar in their structural elements etc.
The problem we have is what to make of these observations. If we move to theorizing from our hypothesis, we must have observations based upon data gathered which are repeatable and tend only to point toward our theory. I say, once again, is natural selection the only possible conclusion from all of this data?
You need to prove that your leaping-off point into the belief in evolution isn't a leap of 'faith.'
"That was just a general comment, not directed at most recent posts."
Oh of course not, after all what would give people that impression?
"My background is in Microbiology."
Ok, then you can start by explaining in your views the reasonable objections to said hypothesis/theory which you reject, right? I mean, you shouldn't have to use another logical fallacy, that of the appeal to authority type, right?
Hi believer, what do you define as chaos and destruction?
Thanks
Steve
That was just a general comment, not directed at most recent posts.
"Ad hominem against the man" is a debate technique used by those who would rather attack the character and education of their adversary, than logically and reasonably explain and defend their own point of view.
(The 6 day creation is a cute little story, kind of rhythmic, like a poem).
Spoken like a true liberal/textual critic. Contradictions abound from those who claim to believe in sacred scripture but then turn around and repudiate its explicit testimony.
Tallguy, are the Scriptures Gods Word or not?
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2Timothy 3:16).
We really should not be surprised when the Word of God is attacked.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ (Colossians 2:8).
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; (2Timothy 4:3).
tallguy, man was created by God and woman was created from man, says who, when did the creation story move from being a story to becoming an actual event? Plus do you believe that death, destruction, and chaos are a direct result of sin, if so, then when did the first sin occur on earth since by the time man and woman appear on the scene these three things already exist?
"Gee agentorange, you have a BS in Computer Technology"
Masters.
"and you claim to be an authority in evolutionary biology as if you are degreed in it"
Na, if I were an authority I'd attempt to author a book. I did take Paleontology courses as my minor though in college, but I merely stop by to attempt to reflect some light on the subject for which some know very little about.
"You no doubt are knowledgable in evolutionary biology but you are not degreed in it to any level"
No person is any one thing anyway, it certainly doesn't prevent me from researching and reviewing books and articles.
"Do you not think that this Adam Ross can be knowledgable"
A person with just an AA in history and general ed is about as low as it gets, only an degree in journalism is more laughable. Maybe, but not when I see bogus, dead and long gone refuted talking points. I wouldn't be suprised if he used the '2nd law of thermodynamics' as evidence. His site is hardly reputable, it's not even current (2004), doesn't refer to recent research or articles, and the sources he does offer (Ken Ham and Kent 'jailbird' Hovind) are absolute rubbish.
"I never said that speciation as you described it could not happen."
Quick recap, speciation = species diverging into another species. Also recall earlier you stated emphatically that 'kind' = species. Thus, this means new 'kinds' can be created, no?
Star, your position is such that species A can't diverge into species B, but we have evidence for this. So where is such evolution from species to species becomes impossible?
"It is a product of microevolution in your terminology and in no way proves macro-evolution."
Right, macro-evolution/speciation is the end byproduct of numerous successions of micro-evolution; the main difference is you end up with a new species, whereas with micro-evolution all biological changes exist within only one species. How can you walk a mile without taking a step?
"that you cannot get, for example, a lion, a tiger, and a domestic cat from a common ancestor"
Any why not? Evolution wouldn't predict for the lion and domestic cat to share the same immediate ancestor as they are more distantly related than compared with lions and tigers for instance, but they would still share ancestry. They are all different species and apparently shared a common ancestor as per genetics and the fossil record.
"It is genetically impossible"
Explain where it's impossible (genetically or otherwise) for one species to diverge into another species and then you’d have a point in making it as being impossible, but since you can’t, then you can’t.
"you need to describe the process in detail."
I have, like countless times. Mutations (variation), natural selection, genetic drifting, genetic isolation, speciation. Of course, this is simplified.Specify at which point it becomes impossible.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
<<Whoah, a 2 Year college!?! Get out! General Ed and History!? No way! And this makes him qualified to discuss such science evidence, how again? Wahahaha, you've been had star. A guy with an AA degree, and not even a degree in anything related to the evidence he rails against...priceless.>>
Gee agentorange, you have a BS in Computer Technology or something similar to it, and you claim to be an authority in evolutionary biology as if you are degreed in it either at the college level or the graduate level or even with a PhD in it.
You no doubt are knowledgable in evolutionary biology but you are not degreed in it to any level and you certaintly don't make a living doing it. I am sure most of it comes from independent study, does it not? Do you not think that this Adam Ross can be knowledgable in what he talks about through independent study like you are knowledgable in evolutionary biology mainly through your independent study?
I hardly consider the life expectancy of 70-80 yrs great in view of the fact that man use to live to nearly a 1000 yrs after the fall of man and declined significantly after God brought judgment aginst the world because of sin through a flood. God set the length of man's days to 120 yrs max just before the world-wide flood. It took some time before that went into effect. Noah and his sons, and son's sons didn't live as long after the flood. Today we have no record with proof that any human has lived past 120 yrs.
agentorange
I never said that speciation as you described it could not happen. It is a product of microevolution in your terminology and in no way proves macro-evolution. What I said was that you cannot get, for example, a lion, a tiger, and a domestic cat from a common ancestor, which would be macro-evolution. It is genetically impossible. If you think otherwise then you need to describe the process in detail.
According to the Word of God, each species that God created He created uniquely,at the same time (on day 6 for land animals and humans, for example), and with the ability to reproduce itself from the coming together of a male and female of the species; one did not evolve from another over a large period of time with sex differentiation somehow appearing from an asexual single cell organism from which all life originated from.
"4. Man is slowly going down hill in genetics, life-expectancy, age, and intelligence due to the fall"
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/creation_truths/evo_begging.html
WoW, now this one is a winner, it reminds me of Hovind! So let's see, we've seen in just the past 100 years that life expectancy has steadily increased due to largely increases in technological and science advances, and yet this guy says it's on the decline?
Man, it just keeps getting better, you just can't make this stuff up.
"Bio: Adam Ross
Adam has recently graduated from WSCC, a two-year college with a degree in General Education and a concentration in History."
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/creation_truths/main_aboutus.html
Whoah, a 2 Year college!?! Get out! General Ed and History!? No way! And this makes him qualified to discuss such science evidence, how again? Wahahaha, you've been had star. A guy with an AA degree, and not even a degree in anything related to the evidence he rails against...priceless.
speaking of angelfire,
"The concept that is believed and taught widely is that man evoloved out of a more primitive, savage, ape-like, barbaric animal through a slow series of steps.
Regardless of the fact that no such series of steps has been found, this is a dangerous assumption. Why?"
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/creation_truths/evo_begging.html
Yup, according to this person, no such transitionals exist, but we've talked on this part already. Oh well, pretend they don't exist.
"If I was that way agentorange then I would believe all the stuff that the evolutionists put out on the internet now wouldn't I?."
Mmmmmm, na, not really. Coming to understand the evidence and the theory overall requires more than simply reading from the Internet, particularly of such sites as anglefire.com (a publicly hosted site, in which anyone can put up whatever they want and not source a thing, since you're an IT layman). But I digress. It would require some actual reading from books and articles by authors in the related fields and to come to understand how the scientific method works in the first place before doing a priori assumption of X. Just becoming familiar with key words or terminology wont suffice.
agentorange
<<<Star, you remind me of Lisa Hassleback from 'The View' in which she thinks that all things from the Internet are as accurate and well supported and cited as all others.>>>
If I was that way agentorange then I would believe all the stuff that the evolutionists put out on the internet now wouldn't I?.
Star, you remind me of Lisa Hassleback from 'The View' in which she thinks that all things from the Internet are as accurate and well supported and cited as all others.
Star, so now that I have your attention, and now that this article is related to evolution, might you be open to discussing those instances of observed speciation? After all, you decried it can't happen, so some explaining is due.
Star,
"9. Basalt from Mt. Etna, in Sicily (122 BC) was tested using the K-Ar method and found to be 250,000 years old. (G.B. Dalyrmple, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55; also see Impact, #307, Jan. 1999)"
Oh dear, looks like you have to brush up on more than simply terminology. Not all isotpes decay at the same rate, got it?
Using a method, like K-Ar (potassium argon) has a MINUMIN dating range of 100,000 years, thus when it's used to date something very recent, say like the basalt, it will obviously return a bogus age. The proper dating method must be used, just like the proper measuring tool must be used.
agentorange, angelfire has more credibility than you do.
"Taken from http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/creation_truths/evo_radiodating2.html"
Pffffft...haahawaayaaah! hilarious. Since when did angelfire site have anything credibly backed star?
jcfollower, "My background is in Microbiology."
Oh really now? Hmmm, interesting isn't it that you'd saw you're in microbilogy and yet refer to a scientific hypothesis (or theory) as having to be 'proven' to be used, applied, or understood. I highly doubt that you are, but by all means explain your objections to the theory.
The problem is that you don't know how to read your bible! You think you do, but you don't. You don't know how to read it in its entirety, know how to interpret it, and you don't know how to understand it. Neither do I, I'm like the eunuch in the book of Acts Ch8, and unlike you, I'm NOT too proud to listen to and trust 2000 years of Church teachings, I work in Electrical Engineering, therefore I'll leave the interpretation of the bible to people who have studied it in its entirety, how it was written at the time, the culture of the time, the language of the time. In this case, you need to understand the point. What's the point of what the author (God's Holy Spirit) wanted to get across to us. The 6 day creation is a cute little story, kind of rhythmic, like a poem.
Here's the point:
God alone created the universe, freely, directly and without any help
The incredible generosity of God
The high point of creation is man and woman. We are created in the image and likeness of God.
Man is given dominion
Woman was created from man
Through disobedience mankind fell, thus original sin
God would send us a redeemer
believer said, "tallguy, make that 3!!!"
MuggleBorn raises his hand. "4!" :^)
MuggleBorn gets back to work.
"pro-science, an average 6 yr old doesn't think in those terms. They would look at the Grand Canyon and probably just say "wow" over the size of it."
I'm in my 40's and I still do but not as much as the Valles Marineris on Mars, now that makes the Grand Canyon look like small fry.
vse, in Genesis 1 and 2, a day with God is a literal 24 hour period.
the message of Genesis is that God created the world. To pin God down to a human time frame is silly. How long is day to God?
tallguy,
I do. I really believe God did what He said, and meant what He said in the Genesis account of creation.
No where do I see any change in the Scripture that the literal understanding is not what we should believe, espeically since Christ seemed to take it literally.
tallguy, plus you never answered star2's question, if the accounts in Genesis are nothing more than stories then when does God finally start telling the truth?
tallguy, make that 3!!!
So the two of you actually believe that God created the world in 6 days as stated in Genesis?
tallguy, the creation account in Genesis is a story as much as the account of Jesus' crucifixion is a story - it is an account of historical fact.
Tallguy1000, when does the Word of God stop being a story?
This is a great article! Thank God for the Catholic Church who has the courage and wisdom to invite people like Stephen Hawking, Albert Eschenmoser, David Baltimore, Fotis Kafatos, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini and Father Stanley L. Jaki to speak at this conference.
Evolution does not take away from the story of Creation. The 6 day story of creation is only that, a story.
Thank God for establishing His Church, the Holy Catholic Church! May He continue to guide it while it guides us...
pro-science said, "A 6 year old with average intelligence could look at the Grand Canyon and be able to figure out it took the Colorado River millions of years to carve out a canyon one mile deep."
pro-science, an average 6 yr old doesn't think in those terms. They would look at the Grand Canyon and probably just say "wow" over the size of it.
When you were 6 you believed what the Catholic Church told you about the stories in the bible that you now say is nothing more than a myth. Is that not true?
sscitsongas
wrote:
"2. The same scientific principals that are used to date the age of rocks, sediment, fossils and the strata in which they are found are the very same scientific principals that make ... MRI ... possible."
FYI
Dr Raymond Damadian,
a creationist scientist,
is the inventor of the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanner.
(Partial quote)
Dr Damadian’s invention has earned him several top awards, including the United States’ National Medal of Technology, the Lincoln-Edison Medal, and induction into the National Inventors Hall of Fame alongside Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright brothers. . . .
- Raymond Damadian first filed patents on his machine following his pioneering scientific paper in 1971, which was the first time anyone had shown it was possible to use MRI to distinguish between healthy and diseased tissue.
- He currently holds dozens of patents which list him as the inventor.
- As recently as 2001, the Lemelson-MIT program bestowed its lifetime achievement award on Dr Damadian as ‘the man who invented the MRI scanner’."
See:
The not-so-Nobel decision
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/nobel.asp
And
Super-scientist slams society’s spiritual sickness!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i3/science.asp
For a list
of many other
creationist scientists,
see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
sscitsongas
The methods that are used to determine the age of substances whose ages are unknown are the same methods that were used to determine the ages of substances whose ages were known. If those methods were wrong for the substances of ages we knew they would also be wrong for the substances whose ages we do not know.
Some of the findings were published in reputable secular peer review scientific journals that require that the researchers use the acceptable rigorous scientific methods known to man in their research. Their work was accepted and published so apparently they did. Does that not carry any weight with you?
I am sure if there were papers submitted to these same journals that reflected your beliefs and they were accepted and published by them, then you would accept the findings, would you not? If yes, then why not the ones who findings differ from your beliefs?
"young earth scientists"
This is very insulting to scientists. Creationists need to stop pretending there are real scientists in the world who support their medieval thinking.
A 6 year old with average intelligence could look at the Grand Canyon and be able to figure out it took the Colorado River millions of years to carve out a canyon one mile deep.
The average 6 year old is smarter than the "young earth creationists". It's obvious that religious brainwashing destroys a person's mind.
"young earth scientists"
Scientists? I think you meant "young earth wackos".
"old earthers"
I never saw that one before. Since all real scientists and all educated people agree the earth is billions of years old (because of the massive undeniable evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth), it's not really necessary to call them "old earthers".
thanx for the prayers believer and I hope you have a real good night, I got to get to bed now because I have to get up early...scits
scits, I appreciate those kind words and just know I am still praying for you, have a good night, believer
believer, I guess I would have to say I admire you for your faith and I am glad it works well for you, I mean that sincerely because I think you are a good and decent person judging from your posts on CP. I can't say that for a lot of posters I see here. My realm is science, I have no religious faith and I am OK with that.
star, I can see you know how to do a lot of cut and pasting. As I recall you have little to no background in science. Do you really understand much about what your cutting and pasting? In science there is error and uncertainty in all data. Something as simple as measuring the weight of an object has a level of error in it, scientist usually report the amount of error and uncertainty in their data. Good university science programs devote much time to error analysis. You have cut and paste some stuff that does indeed describe error, thats why single measurements and single sources of data are never taken as the final answer. Take for example the age of the earth which scientist have so far determined to be around 4.5 billion years. The 4.5 b didn't come from a few data points. It has come from thousands of pieces of information and the work of thousands of scientists. Unless your expertise is in the area of radiochemistry and statistics, you are probably not the "go to guy" to refute the validity of radiometric analysis that thousands of scientist use.
Correct me if am wrong here, but looks like your doing here is what scientist call cherry picking of data to support a position. Looks like thats what you are doing to support your young earth bias. Cherry pickers in science usually get called out fairly quickly lose their jobs.
scits, no, needless to say I'd first make it a serious matter of prayer and in the prayer ask God to help me to find the doctor who He's best gifted to be used of Him to do the medical work that needs to be done. But if He would prefer to personally heal me I'm totally okay with that. But more important than anything else I would let Him know my utmost desire is to see His will done in the matter, because as a child of His I'm in a win-win situation. Either I'll stay here and continue my journey with Him or I'll go home to heaven to be with Him for eternity. And scits I don't say that haughtily but I say it with genuine sincerity, because there would still be a part of me that would more than likely be a little anxious during that time.
Re: Radiometric dating of the earth and fossils: Are they trustworthy?
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_earth:
Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years.
Can we be so sure?
Taken from http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/creation_truths/evo_radiodating2.html
Anomalies of Radiometric Dating
Here are 12 specific examples of the unreliabilty of the radioactive dating methods:
1. Rock from a dactite lava dome at Mount St. Helens that was formed in 1986 during the eruption there was dated (using the Potassium-Argon [K-Ar] method) at 0.35 ±0.05 million years. (S.A. Austin, "Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dactite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano," CEN Technical Journal, 10(3):335-343, 1986)
2. A British Engineer, Sidney P. Clementson, studied a variety of modern volcanic rock. Knowing their ages as 200-300 years old, he carefully compared them to Soviet uranium tests of the same volcanic rocks. What he found was surprising. In every instance the dates were found to be hugely incorrect with a 14 billion year (the dates varied from 50 million years to 14.5 billion) discrepancy. ("Critical Examination of Radioactive Dating of Rocks," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1970.)
3. A single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine had a radiometric error spread of 700 million years. (G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, pp. 139-140.)
4. Granite from the Black Hills gave strontium/rubidium and various lead system dates varying from 1.16 to 2.55 billion years. (L. Ferrell, "Dating Methods", Evolution Disproved, 2001)
5. In 1800-1801, lava flows off the coast of Hawaii near Hualalei formed volcanic rock. It was dated using K-Ar (Potassium-Argon). The K-Ar dating gave dates ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years. (Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968; Science, October 11, 1968)
6. Doctor Read, in a presentation before a special meeting of the California State Board of Education, presented his research into the radiometric dating of lunar (moon) rocks. Many lunar samples were brought back from the missions and carefully dated usingthorium dating, uranium dating, potassium-argon dating, and agglutinate dating. Yet the dates vary from 2 million to 28 billion. ("Proceedings of the Second, Third and Fourth Lunar Conferences," Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volumes 14 and 17)
Re: Radiometric dating of the earth and fossils: Are they trustworthy?
Part 2
7. Oxford Castle in England was built 725 years ago, and yet its mortar has been radiocarbon dated at 7,370 years old. (E.A. Von Fange, "Time Upside Down," quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, November, 1974, p. 18.)
8. Here is a quote which further demonstrates the accuracy problems of radiometric dating, and the carbon-14 method in particular:
"Hair from the Chekurovka mammoth that was found in the Lena River delta region of Russia has a radiocarbon age of 26,000 [years], while the radiocarbon age of peat only eighteen inches above the carcass is 5,610. At normal [present] growth rates, between 500-2,000 solar years would be required for the development of an eighteen inch peat layer.
"Muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk ox found in frozen muck at Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, has a radiocarbon age of 24,000, while the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb of the carcass is 17,200. A life span exceeding 7,000 years for a specimen of this species is doubtful.
"In a gravel deposit at the Union Pacific Mammoth Site near Rawlins, Wyoming, a mammoth skeleton was found together with artifacts that indicate the animal was killed by man. Radiocarbon dating of ivory from the center of the tusks establishes the kill date at approximately 11,300 radiocarbon years ago. Wood fragments from the gravel in which the remains were buried have a radiocarbon age of approximately 5,000 years. The bones would not have survived 6,000 solar years of exposure, nor could they be expected to remain in an articulate relationship during erosion and reburial by natural processes.
"A mastodon skeleton found at Ferguson Farm near Tupperville, Ontario, provided a radiocarbon age of 8,900 for the collagen fraction of bones and a radiocarbon age of 6,200 for high organic-content mud from within the skull cavities. It is unlikely that this skeleton could have survived exposure for 2,700 solar years before emplacement in peat." --Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.
Re: Radiometric dating of the earth and fossils: Are they trustworthy?
Part 3
9. Basalt from Mt. Etna, in Sicily (122 BC) was tested using the K-Ar method and found to be 250,000 years old. (G.B. Dalyrmple, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55; also see Impact, #307, Jan. 1999)
10. "One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the 'wood immediately around the carcass' was 9-10,000." (T.L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. printing office, 1975) pg. 30)
11. "The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY." (H.E. Anthony, "Natures Deep Freeze," Natural History, Sept. 1949, pg. 300)
12. "The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 ±670 and 16,150 ±230 years respectively." (R.M. Thorson and R.D. Guthrie, "Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska," Quaternary Research, Vol. 37, No 2, March 1992, pg. 214-228)
It is obvious that the radiometric dating of substances we know the age of is wrong. Would you not think the ages that are determined for substances we don't know the age of are equally as wrong?
wbmoore
"As I've said, you can't look at the data objectively."
OK, you win. You keep believing whatever you want. I will stick with the scientific evidence.
Since we have no idea how much plutonium 244 was in existence at the creation of the world, we have no way of knowing how muchs should be present in either a YE or OE model.
As I've said, you can't look at the data objectively.
wbmoore,
You can ignore that data if you want, thats your right, that position wouldnt get you very far in science however. There are many pieces of data that refute YE, one of many is the fact that there is no plutonium 242 or 239 which have half-lives of 373,000 and 24,000 years, respectively. Yet plutonium 244 with a half-life of 81 million years can, with great difficulty be found in very trace amounts. How would a YE "scientist" account for this. If the earth is less than 10,000 years, there should be easily detectable amounts of these three plutonium isotopes. i could go on, but wont waste my time as you already stated you have your mind made up, never mind the data.
"I think most old earth scientists are likely to be too close minded to do so. So consider it a challenge. "
Again show us the data that supports a young earth.
you've seen the data, if you looked at the data old earthers use - it is the same.
As for me providing anything further, take an honest, objective, look at what various young earth scientists are writing. I dont think you can do so. Given the disparaging remarks I have seen old earth believers write about young earth scientists, I think most old earth scientists are likely to be too close minded to do so. So consider it a challenge.
But I made the statement that the same scientific data is used by people in models that show the possibility of a young earth for those who were not aware of it.
Personally, I'm satisfied and have no need to prove it to you. I really don't care what you believe, other than wanting you to come to faith in Christ.
wbmoore
Oh really, please provide the comparison that shows disagreement on the same data between evolutionary scientist and earth scientists.
I am still waiting for your young earth data.
It is the same data evolutionists and old earth scientists use. The difference is in the interpretation of the data.
wbmoore
"The same principles that are used to describe an old earth can be used to describe a young earth."
Please provide the scientific data that says the earth is less than 10,000 years.
Science in a valid field of study. Yet, science with its eyes closed (ala having already predetermined what the evidence says as evolutionists often do) is not science.
The same principles that are used to describe an old earth can be used to describe a young earth.
believer, so I assume that if you have a life threatening condition and are in need of modern medical treatment, thanks to science, such as open heart surgery or life saving drugs, you will take a pass.
scits, who needs scientific data when we've got the Word of God!!!
To those creationists that believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old, I would make three comments:
1. You have absolutely zero scientific data to support the claim.
2. The same scientific principals that are used to date the age of rocks, sediment, fossils and the strata in which they are found are the very same scientific principals that make the internet, cell phones, MRI, medical cyclotrons, drugs, nuclear reactors(and yes nuclear weapons) possible.
3. Its a free country, you can believe and express your opinion on whether you want to accept scientific data. But know this, creationism has no place in the science class room because it is religion and NOT science.
PRO CREATION.....my wife and I are often up for that!!
20
THE POINT IS PRO CREATION
"The question is, do we believe in after life"
No its not, we have been discussing such topics as the age of the Earth, radioativity, the big bang, so no thats not the question at all, maybe on another thread.
wb, yes creationists do use that word but pro science is talking from a scientific perspective and as such I don't reconise that word either, feel free to use it as much as you like though, its a free world.
"I have never heard a biologist call it evolutionism. It's called evolution."
The process is called evolution. The religious belief is called evolutionism.
The question is, do we believe in after life. If we do then it is acceptable that in the afterlife there is a ruler. I accept that science has something to do with creation but why do we have to cling to evolution. If God and the afterlife exist, we have to assume he has technology, even before the earth was formed. We have only had electricity a few hundred years. Look where we have come in only a few hundred years. What will we know in 1000 yrs. If God is real then I would think that he has known of things not only that we have learned so far but also things we will learn in the future and has known all this before our existance so lets say for arguments sake is the 10000 yrs. What could we do in 10,000 years. We have broken down life into genes creating DNA and the genes have tags that activate them. All creation is 98% the same DNA make up. A tree is 98% the same as a human. We can clone a sheep and we find it hard to believe God could make a man with over 10,000 yrs of technology and something that is allready 98%. Gen doesnt start the 1st day till after the creation of light and dark on the earth, so who knows how long it took to that point, but I do believe it happened by design. I don't know what kind of medical advances in light technology or magnetics or chemical reactions might come about, but surely we have not learned all there is in 200 or so years.
I believe in the living God. I believe we are created by God in his image to be his decendance and placed here on the earth that he created for us. I will not water down the word as if it were a fabel. If God is real then I believe he has communicated his word to those who he will and that the scripture means that man was created in one day. (from the time the light shown to when it returned dark again according to the spinning of the earth). I do not Know how but I am only familier with 200 years of technology.
* * * *United body of Christ* * * * Comming Soon!
"Many worldwide natural processes indicate an age for the earth of 10,000 years or less."
Horrible. It's very sad that some people are willing to deny powerful evidence from many branches of science just to defend their medieval beliefs.
JoeU wrote about "Molecules-to-man evolutionism" and he copy and pasted a lot of misinformation from some anti-science Bible website.
I have never heard a biologist call it evolutionism. It's called evolution.
His "molecules to man" implies that people are the final and most important result of evolution. That's not true at all. Humans are just one small branch on the vast tree of life. We are not better or worse than any other species. Every species has developed to be good enough to survive to in the environment they live in. Over vast periods of time species become separated and develop differently and that explains why the earth contains countless different species today, and did contain many millions more species that are now extinct.
It's unfortunate that Christians who feel threatened by science choose to get all their information from people who are also afraid of science. Why not have the courage to understand the discoveries of modern science by studying those discoveries as explained by the real scientists who actually made those discoveries, instead of depending on professional liars who never discovered anything. Real science is many times more interesting than the constant lying from the creationist organizations like the Discovery Institute and Answers-in-Genesis.
Your quite correct there are events in the geological(well reconised by geologists)record that clearly result in deposition occuring over very short time periods and by that I am thinking of hours and days, however, there are clear sequences in the strata which would have taken quite long periods of time.
BW
Steve
steveh20,
The Grand Canyon-Mt. St. Helens comparison was simply to provide an example of something many believe took millions of years to occur being able to be explained in a different way that in fact took weeks or months.
My point is there are often ways to explain the data that do not necessitate eons.
Thanks wb I appreciate your reply.
The point you make about St Helens is very valid and deposition can occur very quickly. As we look through the geological record we can see events where these have occured, they are well reconised by geologists(pyroclastic flows leave distinctive layering). I'm not sure why you use the grand canyon as an example that it took millions of years for the Earth to form, the Earth was already more then 4.25 billion years old before it appeared (so to speak).
Kind regards
Steve
steveh20,
As many on here like to say about scripture, that is your interpretation (of the data) based on certain assumptions.
I don't how old the world is, but I think there is an equally valid interpretation of the scientific data that shows the earth is much younger than old earthers want to believe. But I trust God much more than I trust people, so I think its more likely to be 6000 years than billions.
People want to believe it took millions of years to form our earth, and like to use the grand canyon as a simple example. But when we look at Mt. St. Helen's volcano, we see similar results in a microscopically short time in comparison.
The truth is, our limited perspective is only able to look at data and make assumptions as to how they came to be. Sometimes those assumptions prove out, sometimes they do not. I have no problem with any of the various scientific disciplines - only the ignoring of assumptions that go into the explanations being presented and the shutting down of investigation of other explanations for the data.
So then wb, how old is the Earth, place your cards on the table, I say 4.5 billion years old and that it formed from a rotating cloud of dust and gas, I've really good reasons for thinking that.
To be able to measure decay, the assumption is that what is being measured is in a closed system. This is a big assumption - the assumption that the initial known amount of material being measured is known, as well as the assumption that no new material being measured was introduced, as well as the assumption that no existing material has exited in any way other than decay.
Many variables which are not known to be true in any system.
JoeU
First of all, thank you for your post.
There is one statement you make where I think you might have misundertood something, and that concerns, matter not condensing to form galaxies. I believe from this statement that you most likely believe that the big bang was an explosion, many believe this and it is understandable why, given the name of the event. In truth though the big bang was not an explosion (which is an area of unequal pressure) but rather the aftermarth of an event which results in space time(not matter) starting to expand equally in all directions. Matter at this point does not exist but comes into existenece within space time as sub atomic particles are created in the great heat/energy that exists. After about 300'000 years the energy level within the universe has dropped(allowing combination of leptons and hadrons)that most hydrogen is the dominant form of matter followed by helium and a trace of lithium.
Galaxy formation is another issue, I just felt I wanted to put the record striaght re your statement concerning matter and the big bang.
Kind regards
Steve
Parts of the article say:
"The five-day conference, sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, is the latest initiative in an effort by the Vatican to promote dialogue between scientists and theologians. ... The Catholic Church rejects a fundamentalist interpretation of the Creation story in Genesis, regarding the six-day account as an allegory. ... Benedict said ... "There is no opposition between faith's understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences," he said, quoting from Popes Pius XII and John Paul II. "
Appended are a few previous Catholic statements regarding "the Creation story in Genesis". Included are statements from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope Pius XII and some "Cutting-edge science" "
Of special interest is the following:
- Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
From:
What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm
- Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909)
- Genesis contains real historyâ€â€it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
...
- All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
...
- Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
- Investigation into human “evolution†was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.
WhatDoes Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?
- Molecules-to-man evolutionary theory violates the second law of thermodynamics by positing spontaneous increases in order through random interactions of matter.
- Matter from explosions does not condense to form objects like galaxies.
- Chemicals do not react together randomly to form amino acids through natural processes.
- Amino acids do not randomly interact to form living cells through undirected natural processes.
- Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life.
- The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings.
...
- As now used by evolutionary scientists there is virtually no value in radio dating as an objective source of prehistoric chronology.
- Many worldwide natural processes indicate an age for the earth of 10,000 years or less. These include population kinetics, influx of radiocarbon into earth’s atmosphere, absence of meteorites from the geologic column, and decay of earth’s magnetic field.
...
- There is no gradualism in the fossil record, no intermediate types."
ekpeirazo said he agrees with me that evolution is not compatible with the Bible.
Yeah, thanks. It's pretty obvious, isn't it? When an atheist tells a Christian he can accept both evolution and the Bible, the atheist is lying and the Christian knows he's lying. No matter how the Bible is interpreted, it would be dishonest to pretend Genesis supports the idea that people developed from other animals.
Now the problem for the Christian is what to do about the religious implications of evolution. Of course the logical thing to do is throw out Christianity. That's the most simple solution. Unfortunately many Christians like their religion hobby and they are not willing to give it up so easily. So they choose to be uneducated about science, hoping that science goes away and leaves them alone.
Some Christians, who don't know what they're talking about, make dishonest claims about evolution. Here's an example:
jcfollower wrote (about evolution): "It has never been proven."
Scientists like to say nothing is science is proven because there could always be new evidence that requires them to modify or throw out old ideas. Science is all about disproving things, not proving them. The basic facts of evolution have been tested for 150 years and they have so far passed every test. Since Darwin the evidence for evolution has become so massive and so powerful that today it's fair to say evolution has become the strongest fact of science. For example, evidence from molecular biology and genetics has repeatedly shown beyond any doubt that people and chimps share an ancestor, and this powerful evidence continues to grow every single day. jcfollower's dishonest claim that evolution is just an hypothesis and not fact is what I would expect from somebody who is threatened by science. I'm not saying he is intentionally dishonest, but it's obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about, and it's strange that he thinks he knows more about biology than the top scientists of the world who work at universities like MIT and Harvard.
wr
I'm sorry but I don't understand your comment, could you please explain it.
Thanks
Steve
One has to wonder if Adam and Eve had to change their clocks twice a year to compensate for anything being out of order.
I agree with the statement made by pro-science: "their claim that evolution is compatible with the Bible is wishful thinking". (And I'm a follower of Christ.)
No, I would never claim knowledge that was not my own. My background is in Microbiology. I am impressed with your knowledge of current radiochemistry.
However, I still believe that there is an element of faith involved here, because the decay rate data to which you refer cannot be verified with recorded historical scientific data. Are these decay rates linear? Can we know not having lived and witnessed such? Those who do not believe that God created the heavens and the earth will state that no one was there to witness it. Guess what. No one has witnessed complete decay rates either. We are still limited only to what has been recorded thus far and what we can 'predict' or 'hypothesize' will happen. It doesn't prove that you are wrong, for sure. But it also doesn't prove that you are right. Sorry. For now I will choose to believe or have faith in my religion and not yours.
jcfollower,
My guess is you dont have a strong background in radiochemistry nor archeology.
There are a number of radiologic techniques available to the archeologist for determining the age of fossils and the sediment and rock in which fossils exist.
Carbon dating (using the isotope C-14) has a half-life of about 5700 years. C-14 measurements are reliable to about 8 half-lives which works out to be about 45,000 years ( the upper limit is probably closer to 60,000 years). There are a number of other radiometric techniques available to determine older fossils and the strata in which they might be found.
These other techniques are:
K-40 half-life = 1.3 billion years.
U-235 704 million years.
U -238 4.5 billion years.
Th - 232 14 billion years.
A very interesting isotope is plutonium - 242 with a half life of 373,000 years. Pu-242 only occurs from man-made sources (nuclear reactors) because after billions of years, the naturally occurring isotope has decayed and can no longer be found. The absence of this isotope, along with the presence of other very long lived isotopes, indicates that the earth is very old (4.5 billion years).
Ok, science has found bones of creatures that are obviously extinct. Science has also found ways to sort and classify organisms both living and dead.
We came up with a way to sort organisms according to their similarities and differences. A man hypothesized that these patterns mean that one organism originated from another. This 'hypothesis' is just that, an 'hypothesis.' It has never been proven.
As to the age of the fossils. Carbon dating has been shown to be rather unreliable beyond 8000 years.
This doesn't keep anyone from continuing to work on proving their 'hypothesis.' It is, however, dishonest to make it 'fact', without first scientifically proving it. That's not science, that's a form of 'faith' or 'religion.'
steveh20, well if not it will certainly show those organizing this meeting pretty well have their minds made up from a scientific perspective.
Hi believer. No, I doubt "scientists" from those camps have been invited (though whilst not wishing to split hairs I'm certain some of them believe in a creator and are therefore creationists). The question to ask yourself then is, why is that?
BW
Steve
pro-science it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it to, one post you say the pope is clueless and the next you say he has led catholics to join the 21st century, to me it sounds like he is a little confused in these matters and that's why he's called for this meeting, but I wonder if he has invited those from the intelligent design and creationism camps?
pro-science
Galatians 6:7 - "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
"During a press gathering in September, the Vatican said the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible and that it was even planning to hold a new interdisciplinary conference to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species next March in Rome."
I'm very pleased that the Vatican has decided to join the 21st century and accept the facts of modern biology. However their claim that evolution is compatible with the Bible is wishful thinking. What has the Bible said about fossils, genetics, and molecular biology? Nothing. Not even Jesus knew anything about science. The Bible is full of "God did this" and "God did that" and modern science has shown beyond any doubt that supernatural intervention is not required for anything.
Religion = magic = Dark Ages.
Science = progress = the future.
"Benedict also went further to assert that the Creator was not only involved in the origins of the universe but continually sustains the development of life and the world."
Unlike the scientists who were invited to this Vatican Conference on Evolution, Benedict does not have one shred of evidence for anything he says. He invokes a "Creator" but he is only making wild guesses.
Science and only science contributes to human progress. Religions are good for nothing except getting in the way of human progress. An example are the uneducated Christians whose only interest in science is to suppress and/or dumb down science education.