Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

A Challenge: Another evolution thread


popestpiusx

Recommended Posts

More scientists who do not buy into evolution (or full scale macro-evolution, to be more precise). For more information on any of them just click on their name:

[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/gish.html"]Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry[/url]
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/cumming.html"]Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology[/url]
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/pnason.html"]Patricia Lynnea Gathman Nason, Ph.D. [/url]
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/dewitt.html"]David Dewitt, Ph.D. Neuroscience [/url]
Frank Sherwin, M.A. Zoology
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/wood.html"]Todd C. Wood, Ph.D. Biochemistry/Genomics[/url]
Robert Franks, M.D.
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/eckel.html"]Robert H. Eckel, M.D.[/url]
Gary Parker, Ed.D. Biology
Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Microbiology
David Menton, Ph.D. Cell Biology (Technical Advisory Board)
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/damadian.html"]Raymond V. Damadian, M.D.[/url]
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/fliermans.html"]Carl B. Fliermans, Ph.D. Microbiology[/url]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intresting... I haven't looked at any names, but I am so happy you didn't put "Dr. Dino" up there. He is ummm rather abusrd. I would look them up with some of my freinds, Alpha soup is normally nice, but sometimes they can still be a bit nuts, but I have acadmic bowl this afternoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More:

[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/tantcheva.html"]Lyubka P. Tantcheva, Ph.D. Pharmacology[/url]
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/macreadie.html"]Ian G. Macreadie, Ph.D. Molecular Biology[/url]
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/eggen.html"]Andre Eggen, Ph.D. Animal and Molecular Genetics[/url]
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/veith.html"]Walter J. Veith, Ph.D. Zoology[/url]
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/kramer.html"]John K.G. Kramer, Ph.D. Biochemistry[/url]
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/aaron.html"]Benjamin L. Aaron, M.D.[/url]
[url="http://http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/bullock.html"]Sharon K. Bullock, Ph.D. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine[/url]
John R. Meyer, Ph.D. Zoology
Lane P. Lester, Ph.D. Genetics
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/gillen.html"]Alan Gillen, Ed.D. Science Education[/url]
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/brewer.html"]Gregory J. Brewer, Ph.D. Biology[/url]
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/sanders.html"]Roger W. Sanders, Ph.D. Botany[/url]
Arthur J. Jones, Ph.D. Biology
Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D. Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/odaniel.html"]Donna O'Daniel, M.A. Biological Sciences[/url]
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/wolfrom.html"]Glen W. Wolfrom, Ph.D. Animal Husbandry[/url]
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/armitage.html"]Mark H. Armitage, M.S. Biology[/url]
[url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/lumsden.html"]Richrad D. Lumsden, Ph.D. Biology (R.I.P.)[/url]
David A. Demick, M.D.
Randy Guliuzza, M.D.
Keith Swenson, M.D.
George F. Howe, Ph.D. Botany
David A. Kaufmann, Ph.D. Anatomy
Jonathan B. Scripture, Ph.D. Biochemistry
Richard Oliver , Ph.D. Biology
Inis J. Bardella, M.D.
Gary A. Eckhoff, D.V.M.

Those that don't have links have their bio available if anyone should want to see their credentials. Just ask, I'll post them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to post the challenge. Here it is (this is not a joke):

The Life Science Prize
$1000 Reward for finding an evolutionist that completes a Life Science Prize trial.
$10,000 Reward if the evolutionist proves evolution is science.

Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated. The preponderance of evidence prevails. The judge is a superior court judge. The venue is a courthouse.

For further details:
[url="http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/prize.html"]http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/prize.html[/url]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you trying to prove?

Why do humans keep asking question to which they will never know the answer to?

Evolution is a very possible hypothesis and so is the big bang. Why must you insist on proving them?

Prove to me that I came from mud and that my girlfriend came from a rib. Prove to me that all this was created in 7 days.

You can't. But you choose to believe it. There is no point to trying to prove another hypothesis wrong simply because the answer isn't known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if your pro evolution. Where did the planet that the big bang come from? Who created every little cell. Who created the time that it took that rock and water to become a living organism....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Jan 21 2005, 09:37 PM'] What are you trying to prove?

Why do humans keep asking question to which they will never know the answer to?

Evolution is a very possible hypothesis and so is the big bang. Why must you insist on proving them?

Prove to me that I came from mud and that my girlfriend came from a rib. Prove to me that all this was created in 7 days.

You can't. But you choose to believe it. There is no point to trying to prove another hypothesis wrong simply because the answer isn't known. [/quote]
Catholicism doesn't take Genesis literally. We aren't fundies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm currently enrolled in a general survey of geology class for my degree. The class is on the internet exclusively and for an assignment we are to post two messages on the topic of "Science and Religion". The lecture accompanying the section was about as anti-religious as you can get so I have stressed over this for days. I could not and would not just post some inane nonsense in order to appease the instructor who obviously has a deliberate bias. So I prayed about it and did my homework. This is what I ended up posting for my first message:

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue. <p>
It's funny how these things work, this is an issue that has been front and center in my life the past few weeks as I study the Catholic faith for my upcoming baptism at the Easter vigil.<p>
I am not opposed to science, I am opposed to the philosophy of <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10713a.htm" > naturalism </a> which generally asserts "all events... find their adequate explanation within nature itself." It is this view together with postmodernist relativism which holds religion is solely a matter of opinion and the truth can only be ascertained thru the scientific method. Unfortunately naturalism is the dominant philosophy in many scientific circles and in the culture at large.<p>
Science has it's place in the world as a tool of reason. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" <a href="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm"> (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 159)</a>. <p>
Its purpose should be to help mankind better understand the natural world, in this it is a way in which we can grow closer to God. It strays from this purpose when men try to use science as an idealogy to replace religion.<p>
I see no conflict with science in matters concerning the creation or development of the physical world. God frequently acts thru secondary causes. The Bible is intended to be "an instruction manual on how to go to heaven, not on how the heavens go". (source unknown) <p>
The conflict occurs when scientists that hold to the philsophy of naturalism make assertions not supported by the evidence or, conversely, when theologians deny the evidence to support their own exegesis.<p>
When science intrudes in the domain of theology the consequences can be grave.
Polygenism, for example, the hypothesis which asserts that man evolved in multiple places on the Earth from multiple progenitors, has the effect of denying original sin - no original sin then no need for a savior, therefore no Jesus Christ. Polygenism also gives support to theories of race which always end in the assertion that humanity is not one, but several and that one particular group is somehow "biologically superior". Since there is no evidence of polygenism, this is not only pseudo-science, it's very dangerous pseudo-science.<p>
I noticed other posters were Catholic, here is a link for the magestiarial document <a href="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM> Humani Generis (On Human Origin) </a> promolgated by Pius XII in 1950.<p>

I'd appreciate feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Catalyst' date='Jan 23 2005, 12:28 AM'] if your pro evolution. Where did the planet that the big bang come from? Who created every little cell. Who created the time that it took that rock and water to become a living organism.... [/quote]
It came from outer-space. Where did outer-space come from?!

I don't know. I think it was here way before that and it's just like asking where did the sun come from?

I think Evolution might be on the right track to something. We have already many studies that show that we are all genetically linked one way or another.

Nature. If anything, we owe everything to Nature. Who created Nature? What is Nature? Why is it called Mother nature? Who's "father" nature? God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='spathariossa' date='Jan 23 2005, 12:31 AM'] Catholicism doesn't take Genesis literally. We aren't fundies. [/quote]
You need to qualify that statement.

Genesis isn't literal? No Noah? No Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Joseph wasn't in Egypt?

Or are you speaking of Creation? Are you saying Adam and Eve are figurative and not real people?

Because the Church believes all of the above. And the Church has never stated that the creation story is metaphorical. She simply doesn't say (although she DOES say that at minimum, some parts are quite literal).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='DojoGrant' date='Jan 24 2005, 10:29 AM'] You need to qualify that statement.

Genesis isn't literal? No Noah? No Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Joseph wasn't in Egypt?

Or are you speaking of Creation? Are you saying Adam and Eve are figurative and not real people?

Because the Church believes all of the above. And the Church has never stated that the creation story is metaphorical. She simply doesn't say (although she DOES say that at minimum, some parts are quite literal). [/quote]
Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Jan 24 2005, 12:52 AM'] It came from outer-space. Where did outer-space come from?!

[/quote]
They laughed at the horseless carriage, they laughed at the telephone, they laughed at the airplane.
And now there are some that laugh at Outer Space!
God help us in the future!

On your way home tonight, someone may pass you on the street, and you will never know it . . . for he will be from Outer Space!

~ Plan 9 From Outer Space

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 23 2005, 01:52 AM'] Hahahhaa 'fundies' soiunds like undies. [/quote]
I would just like to register my total and complete support for the trivialization of this thread :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...