BT # 3 

Describing the genealogy of the evolution of man you wrote:  Whenever I reference ‘The Human Story’, all reference point to the factual evolution of humanity....... Things like this Robert Gilman - The Human Story - Our bodies contain ancient hydrogen formed in the first moments of the universe. Our carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and all the other heavy elements in our bodies, are the gift of supernova stars. Our cells have been perfected by the patient workings of countless bacteria through billions of years, and our organs are the gift of thousands of species that evolved during the past billion years. Our bodies are, in a sense, simply a regrouping of very ancient materials …Etc.

BT posts #69

BT,

In #69, you don't know if evolution of man is true, yet in #3, you describe evolution of man as factual.

The evolutionists, such as your Robert Gilman, are guilty of irrational input. There has not been one scintilla of empirical science to substantiate their/his claim that mankind evolved from a regrouping of very ancient materials. How can this be a "physically plausible" theory? 

Talk about irrational belief and your need, nay, the requirement to provide empirical science before rendering something as "factual", as you have repeatedly throughout this discussion!!

As far as irrational belief, Evolution is it and as I stated above, true, empirical science has failed to supply evidence of molecules to man evolution as Robert Gilman suggests. 

 

BT posts #68

Here you are painting belief in the existence of the One God, in Jesus Christ, and His Christian Faith as irrational. Is it?  NO.

By man's very nature, he is free to attain knowledge of the One God. Man has two natural ways of discovering the existence of God ... through reason and through created things perceivable through the senses. 

It's possible to know about God without His having to reveal Himself through supernaturally revealed truths.

We know this from the Book of Wisdom 13:1-9  followed by St.Paul's reference to inexcusable ignorance of the existence of God. Romans 1:20-23.

Wisdom says that pagans, who. led astray by the beauty, power and greatness of created things, took these things for gods, should have known that all this perfection came from their Author, for "from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator."

The fact that it's possible to know God by the use of natural reason means that pagans who choose not to worship Him are blameworthy. Their position is comparable to that of contemporary atheists and unbelievers who deny the existence of God despite the fact that as human beings they do know Him in some way from the depth of their conscience. 

.................

I'm Catholic as you know. It's true that I spontaneously assumed Catholicism from my parents. I graduated from high school in the 60s, at the time the sexual and cultural revolution and that's when the questioning started. After pondering all the different proposals those offered for my life, and going through a period of hard knocks, I made a choice and came to the reasoned conclusion that my religious faith offered a better explanation for reality than materialistic accounts.

What I'm saying is believing in God and His religion doesn't suspend rationality or contradict reason. It depends on them.

Atheism involves a choice too as reason doesn't compel a thinking person to deny God's existence. The decision not to believe involves the free will.

Lula, why are you a devout Catholic? I was one because my mother told me I was. I do not remember being asked much … but there a lot of requirements for a child that I was uncomfortable with that came with that label. One of the things I seem to always have despised was labels when it came to people. I was always independent. I spent 3 years in a Catholic boarding school but I never fit in so was glad when my Parents became less-Catholic and migrated from the church, was ok. That’s right; she was excommunicated when she remarried. 

Second question, what would you have become if you were born in Iraq or China or India? If you can answer this question truthfully, it would go a long way towards understanding why there is no one right way for everyone.

All your references, documentation, attempts at validity, quotes, diatribes (we all do at times), excuses (ditto), all your bible speak … everything … even your one God, is only supported by you and your chosen church through their internal documentation. But the crux of the matter … to the rest of the world you are a minority. And you have the audacity to demand that everyone bow to your self-proclaimed authority to take dominion over the whole earth and all the peoples … and all you have to do is to tell them about your plans to concur the world and ... “that pagans who choose not to worship Him are blameworthy.” Not my idea of fair or balanced.

It is no wonder we are miscommunicating here. You think your Guy having snapped his fingers is the natural conclusion for anyone to come to ... and I say only if they are as smart as a rock. I can just see the axes flying in a B.C. cartoon where the priest walks up and explains that they now have dominion over the the people because it says so on page 27 of this book ... whoosh ... woosh  ... uggh

For now, let this be my first introduction to empirical science and evolution. It was a one clicker to find you know on google?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

 

I spend way too much time there checking up on you and your sources. Your problem here Lula is that you have only one source of information to use. I have the rest of the world…

Lula, all this playing around with words is the equivalent of political PC garbage. Evolution – the theory of development from earlier forms - biology - the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits. Only you seem to have this fixation on “molecules to man evolution”. Notice the three uses of theory … it is important.

Exactly ... right. So why are you trying to convince me to believe in the paranormal?

BT posts #5

Regarding the highlighted, I shall address that later.

Interesting that you apply "on faith alone" to us believers, yet seem oblivious to the fact that your crowd operates on the basis of faith alone too.  

The Origins-- of the universe and of man-- debate is all about beliefs. Atheistic Evolution, Theistic Evolution or Special Creation … what one believes is their “faith” system. You have expressed your belief  that you find Robert Gilman’s idea of the evolution of man “factual”, but how can that be since there has been no, nada, zilch empirical scientific data provided to prove evolution of man. Therefore, don’t you know you must believe it by faith alone?

Evolutionists have provided a genealogy evolutionary formula for the origin of the universe which posits that nothing exploded and expanded and produced the universe and all living things. But you know what? They too have not provided empirical science to prove that and have to believe it on the basis of faith in random chance.

 

 The whole time of scientific endeavor trying to prove this postulate of materialist philosophy called macro-evolution was wasted  If the science of genetics had been known in the 1800s, macro-evolution would have been seen as mistaken. True scientists know the theme of descent with modification has failed and the elusive mechanism has never been found and will not ever be found.

But a retreat on a matter as important as Evolutionism would be catastrophic for the Darwinist establishment, and so the beat goes on. We are dealing with belief systems and Darwin's Evolutionism has become a world wide materialistic philosophy that extends well into politics, sociology, and education. 

In Death of Evolution, Wallace Johnson writes: "Today when the theory of evolution can be shown to be not credible, we hold the paradox of a new surge of evolutionary propaganda flooding the world through the mass media and our educational systems. It must be terribly important for some people to persuade men that they are only animals and that science needs no God. Newman Watts ...warned, every attack made on the Christian Faith made today, has, as its basis, the doctrine of evolution."

Evolutionism is sooooo popular among Atheists and Agnostics because it provides a concept for which a transcendent Creative God is not required. As applied to your side of the debate, empiricanism is not the primary value at stake. What's at stake is to maintain the materialistic philosophy and with it the presige of "science" as the source of all important knowledge.  

People uncritically take for granted Evolutionism as fact. And so goes the thinking ... Evolution is true and mankind evolved from animals and then we are no different from animals. Evolution is true and man and nature are constantly being lifted to a higher plane, and man is liberated from God's standards and is sufficient in himself and answerable only to his own intellect and will. In short, there is no absolute right or wrong. Evolution is true and there is no need of God, Creation, the Fall, Sin, Jesus Christ and Redemption, etc. Evolution is true and the Holy Bible can be completely dismissed.  

The ethical system that flows from the Evolutionism is atheist and agnostic humanism has become a way of life....and one I might add that has lead only to negative moral consequences for it has supplanted Christianity in shaping the wider culture and look at the mess this world of ours is in. Remember my post 36 about how the world, families, society, nations are in turmoil? 

 

 

 

 

This site will only confuse because it contains some true facts mixed with doctrinal errors. To help you out, we should begin by acknowledging evolutionists often avoid making a clear crucual distinction between Evolution and genetic variation and simply claim all change as Evolution. That's what happened in this site.

There is genetic variation which is "change within kind" aka MicroEvolution. The part of the site that's true describes microevolution. No problem with microevolution as it is scientifically explainable and provable.

Your Robert Gilman's genealogy of the evolution of man is Darwin's Macroevolution.  Macroevolution means that higher more genetically complex forms of life emerged from simpler forms of life. It's doctrinal error parading in scientific guise. It's now  known with a high degree of scientific certainity that DNA will not allow Macroevolution to occur.  

The key word here is empirical science and no empirical science has ever been provided in Macroevolution. 

Ok. Here is part of the first paragraph of the Wiki site you provided.

Evolution has led to the diversification of all living organisms from a common ancestor, which are described by Charles Darwin as "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful".^[6]

Notice how this is stated as a scientific "fact". Well it isn't scientific fact or any other kind of fact.  There is no proof whatsoever that all living organisms (plants, animals, and humans) came from a common ancestor. It's macroevolution and  modern science of genetics reveals the message sequence of the DNA molecule alone has proven this is a lie.

Next paragraph in your Wiki search:

There are four common mechanisms of evolution. The first mechanism is natural selection, a process in which there is differential survival and/or reproduction of organisms that differ in one or more inherited traits.^[1] A second mechanism is genetic drift, a process in which there are random changes to the proportions of two or more inherited traits within a population.^[7][8] A third mechanism is mutation, which is a permanent change in a DNA sequence.

...............................

Again , notice how this is stated as scientific fact! The uncritical reader would buy this hook, line and sinker as fact. Well it's not.

Remember IF Macro-evolution has led to the diversification of all living organisms from a common ancestor that means that higher more genetically complex forms of life emerged from simpler forms of life. But how? This Wiki site tells us as "fact" that there are four mechanisms ...

well the only one here that is a mechanism is genetic drift and that goes to microevolution.

Natural selection is not a mechanism and is not evolution at all.New higher genetic information is not gained, but rather tends to be lost. And besides that natural selection only works within an existing gene pool.

Mutations do not result in evolution. They do not create new structures they merely altar existing ones. We have no proofs of evolution from mutation research. 

Again, the elusive mechanism for macro evolution has never been found and now with modern science, we know it will not ever be found.

The so-called mechanism of evolution is a phantom.

...............

Btw, from now on when I say Evolution, I mean macro-evolution.

I understand better now from your writing that you don't know much about Evolution, becasue your arguments are not so much about the validity of Evolution, but rather are arguments against a Designer I call Creator God.

 

 

 

"Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale." Macroevolution - evolution theorized to occur over a long period of time, producing major changes in species and other taxonomic groups. I can live with that but I prefer “The Modern Synthesis” myself.

'Hence, use of the term "macroevolution" is sometimes wrongly used as a litmus test of whether the writer is "properly" neo-Darwinian or not."
 

I did not think you really wanted to go here … humm… Lula, what you are doing here is as hypocritical as it gets. You proclaim this as being presented as facts as you conveniently skip the pronouncements like “... is often viewed as typical examples…” or “Evolution may occur…” or “It is thought to occur…” I do not have a problem teaching Creationism if it is not presented as factual either, which of course you will not tolerate. Creationism is religion and as such, it doesn’t belong in our public schools.
 
"The evolutionary course of Equidae (wide family including all horses and related animals) is often viewed as a typical example of macroevolution. The earliest known genus, Hyracotherium (now reclassified as a palaeothere), was an herbivore animal resembling a dog that lived in the early Cenozoic. As its habitat transformed into an open arid grassland, selective pressure required that the animal become a fast grazer. Thus elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes gradually occurred, producing the only extant genus of Equidae, Equus."

"Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms. Inherited traits are particular distinguishing characteristics, including anatomical, biochemical or behavioral characteristics, that are passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution may occur when there is variation of inherited traits within a population. The major sources of such variation are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow. Evolution has led to the diversification of all living organisms from common ancestors, which are described by Charles Darwin as "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful"."

It is thought to occur in multiple ways such as slowly, steadily and gradually over time or rapidly from one long static state to another.

"The scientific study of evolution began in the mid-nineteenth century, when research into the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species evolve. The mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theory of natural selection was independently proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace in 1858. In the early 20th century, Darwinian theories of evolution were combined with genetics, palaeontology and systematics, which culminated into a union of ideas known as the modern evolutionary synthesis. The synthesis became a major principle of biology as it provided a coherent and unifying explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth."

"Charles Robert Darwin FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist. He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry, and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection. All I can say is we have scientifically come a long way beyond Darwin's abilitry to comprehend and express himself with."

Science always evolves but the Bible never changes so it doesn't allow people to evolve. You are being foolish here and IMO making a big mistake trying to use rational thought processes of the sciences to somehow justify your beliefs. It isn't going to happen.



Lula, let's get this fixed first. Upon further reflection, considering all the circles people are placed in by others, I have to back away from atheism. Although in my heart, I do not believe in the existence of your one God, I have to ask myself ... who the hell am I? In my mind, I cannot refute Gods existence (or not). Mind you of how I feel about labels ... in order to fit into your irrational world … I will allow you to consider me an Agnostic, go figure. But I think you place way too much emphasis on this name calling nonsense.  I'm an agnostic concerning space aliens, the big bang theory, evolution and many other things … it is just a way of expressing an opinion.

And this proves my point which is:

Truth is the distinction between genetic variation (change within each basic kind aka microevolution) and macroevolution (postulated sequences, progressive changes from fishes to amphibians, to reptiles to mammals) is not only fundamental, but also crucial.

Why? becasue generic variation is a truthful reality and scientifically proven whereas modern molecular genetics has proven macroevolution is an impossibility and a lie that is being masqueraded and sold as fact.

Evolution is often described as "Macroevolution" and genetic variation as "microevolution", but perhaps these terms should not be used. After all, macroevolution is Evolution, as theorized by Darwin, but microevolution is not Evolution.

............................

Yes of course some things in the Wiki site about macro-Evolution are presented properly as theory.

However not all and the part of the Wiki site that I quoted was presented as facts when they never should have been.

According to my World Book dictionary definition of Science, true science doesn't evolve. On the other hand, I'll give you that pseudo science which is what macro-Evolution is based on always evolves. 

We certainly know Evolution theory has evolved since the behavior of matter and possible mechanisms for macro-evolution have been subjected to testing and have been found wanting in a big way.

Does true science allow people to evolve? Evolve to what? Nope. Does true science allow people to evolve from what? Apes? Nope. Nature is orderly, and the DNA genetic barrier forbids crossover from one species into a completely different other  species.

You're correct that the BIble never changes and doesn't allow people to evolve from or into a different species.

So when science is understood correctly, that makes science in harmony with the Bible. I know some hold that empirical science clashes with the Bible, but this conclusion is wrong. It must be wrong by definition, for God who is the principle Author of the Bible is omnisceint, Truth Itself, and free from all error and cannot change. Since God is both Creator of all matter and Author of the Bible, the Bible cannot contradict science. 

But again, the Bible only informs us of the who and why and not the when and how of Creation. Empirical science recognizes its limits. It does not because it cannot tells us all that might be known about the material world and the people who inhabit it. The creative operations of God transcend these operations of empirical science.

Lula, I am no expert on evolution and as such I look on it as a learning experience. Mankind has 'all the time in the world' to coin a phrase to learn and correct misconceptions. If we had all the answers like you claim you have, what would be the point of living at all? After all, all we could do is actually disprove something, cannot have that. We learn as we go but you do not. You would rather drag man back 2000 years and use the beliefs of that time to justify the modern world and you cannot. I do not even understand why you would even attempt this nonsense.

You keep harping on proof when all you offer is mystical conclusions. Make all the distinctions you like but it changes nothing. Besides the fact, I really don’t care about evolution. I know enough now to know that we need better science to go further and that I leave to the actual experts. You use a lot of terms in your explanations that are confusing at best. You are taking everything out of context and you know it. This is an encyclopedia and they make no claim whatsoever as to the perfection of every word of the articles. So why are you trying to assert that? Typical hypocrisy, my book is right and that makes everything else wrong.

Anything that you perceive as ‘against doctrine’ is blasphemous and therefore wrong. Until you step down from your alter and treat the people around you as equals, you will not find any more answers. Every discourse with you starts from the perspective that you are perfectly right. Therefore all you have to do is prove the competition wrong (because they must be) usually by just telling them so. Just another religious acrobatic deformation of logic … and there are many.  Your elders made the world your enemy when they claimed dominion over everything … everything had other ideas.

It's been some time since the Catholic Church’s official position was that the sun goes around the earth. Eventually the weight of evidence forced them to admit they had been mistaken about that. Sixty years ago the Pope proclaimed that whether or not evolution happened, it didn't conflict with faith. In 1996, Pope John Paul II officially recognized evolution as a fact of nature. I do not agree with Wallace Johnson, so why would some quotes from him be meaningful. In other words, there is so much evidence of so many different types of evolution that it is no longer possible to reasonably doubt that evolution happens. So this author, claiming to be a Catholic and a Christian, is not only saying the Pope is wrong; he is also denying reality. If he insists that his God created this reality then he is denying his God, or calling the evidence of his God's creation false … basically calling his God a liar ... catch-22.

Science - the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment. What in the world is this ‘true science’ nonsense anyway, more religious gobbledygook? Always … you have to have all the answers. Sadly you will never find them because when you rashly assume you already have them all and therefor you cannot be looking for any more (?) … so all you can do is attack any perceived danger to the cult. Do you know how ridiculous this is? Based on this concept alone you cannot know anything about anything because you do not know everything about everything, go figure.

 

"The creative operations of God transcend these operations of empirical science." ... says who?

The short answer is because the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith is God's plan and Holy will for our salvation. So I cling to the Chruch and the Faith for love of God, of Christ, and my own soul that I might see Him and enjoy Him in everlasting life.

I know that since Christ came and established His Church, the Catholic religion is the only true religion. Moreover, I know by the gift of Divine Faith that the contents of Catholicism are true with the very truth of God. 

When I consider Christ's person, I believe He is Who He claimed to be. When I consider His doctrines together with their effect upon my life, I'm completely satisfied. The argument is strengthened when I see the loss of Christian Faith in a person or even in society or nation leads to vice, discord and despair.

The Catholic Faith gives a quiet, supernatural joy that makes me internally strong and prepared to take upon the great mystery of life. In matters of faith and morals, the CC is my infallible guide, so I know can't go wrong by following her Magisterial teachings which are Christ's teachings.

Being Catholic has a beneficial effect. I have advantage of the fullness of truth and greater means of grace through the 7 Sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist, at my disposal.

I've freely accepted Christ's gift of the Church and Christian Faith. They have given me freedom from error and the freedom through the sacraments to use the wonderful means of Divine grace, to progress in virtue and holiness before God and men.

 

You definitely have an inadequate knowledge of Catholicism. I really don't want to get deeper in your personal life, but what happened as a child in your leaving the Church is one thing, but now as an adult having a general instinctive knowledge, you should give the Church and Catholicism more thought and consideration. Just as you were free to leave, the door is always open for you to return.

 

But 9 times out of 10, you don't apply this independence when it comes to your health or in matters of the law.

You know what you must do to safeguard your bodily health. If any serious health troubles threaten, you're sensible enough not to rely upon your independence and inadequate knowledge of medicine and seek advice from one who is qualified in medical training.

Same thing if you find yourself in a legal tangle, you'll consult one competent in legal matters. 

Well, dear, whether you believe it or not, your eternal destiny is at stake, and instead of consulting the Church and those qualified to help you, you consider yourself independent and fully competent to decide the gravest issues for yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, since 33AD, the Church has diligently lived out Christ's mission to go, teach, and baptize all nations until the end of the world. The CC has done so and I'd like to think I'd be Catholic in those countries.The Catholics in those countries are under grave persecution right now.