Evolution vs Creation

[zealousdefender]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Apr 14 2005, 08:04 PM']The burden is on you to provide proof. You say a god exists, you made the positive claim.  Can you disprove that unicorns live in the middle of mars? You see where that leads.  I dont have to disprove something which hasn't been proven.[/quote]
Sorry to post so late on this, but I'm just getting around to reading all of these posts. Melchisedec, some of your fumblings are just too funny to resist. The URL that "proves" evolution? From that bastion of fair and balanced reporting, The San Francisco Chronicle? And what did I waste my time reading about -- warblers that chirp in different languages? You may not realize this, but many humans also speak different languages. What else ...oh yeah! Some warblers have different markings, and won't have sex with other types of warblers!! In the human species, we sometimes call this racism. So that is your earth shattering evidence -- racist birds that speak different languages?

As for the quote above from you, nobody here initiated the claim that God exists. It has only been repeated here. God Himself told us of His existence many years ago. He proved His existence through many awesome signs that were recorded by those who saw them, and handed down through the generations.

Your problem is that you don't believe the history of it because: A) you didn't see it and B) it happened so long ago. Is this not so? Bet you don't have any problem believing that WWII took place, but did you see it? Do you know anyone who did? Well then what about the Civil War, or the Revolution? Do you believe that George Washington existed? Why -- just because you read it in a book by Simon & Schuster with a publishing date of 1999?

This is the age of instant gratification. We want it now. If it's not now, it's no good and on to the next thing. You and your ilk would have God reduce Himself to the status of a parlor magician by appearing every six months to remind this ADD afflicted planet that He was still around. Would that be good enough for you? You know, a pillar of fire here, some manna from heaven there. Nah, that stuff is too easily faked these days. How about a parting of a sea? No, Hollywood can do that easy. I know, how about if the Red Sox won the World Series? Yeah, bet that would make believers by the thousands!

But do you know what's really sad? Nothing, but nothing at all will totally convince anyone of God's existence if they don't want to believe. Unexplainable miracles happen all the time that cannot be accounted for by scientists or doctors. Fatima just happened 86 years ago, and the physical manifestations were witnessed by journalists, photographed and published in newspapers. (Melchisedec Googles Fatima and searches for most negative article.) People have forgotten that quickly, because they want to. Some people don't want there to be a God, because they don't want there to be a moral certitude, or an absolute truth. Well, I hope they enjoy their time on earth because, like I always say, one of these days there's going to be a lot of surprised &*%@$#?%&#$@*.

There is no burden on anyone here to prove anything to you. These good people are just trying to help you out. God made His case long ago. The burden is on you to accept it or reject it.

I would not be surprised if I caught some flack for being hard on you, and I'll respect that. But to be honest, I'm a little sick of you whining "I haven't seen the evidence" and "Prove it," when you've not presented an iota of credible evidence nor have you proven squat. You think that by taking a negative stance on everything, that precludes you from providing proof of your arguements and shifts the burden to the other side. But that is a cowardly way out and that is just what you are practicing, intellectual cowardice. In my heart I really believe that you could care less about learning anything and that the only reason you are here is to stir... something up. The link in your signature tells me a lot about you. Like I said... a lot of surprised folks someday.

May God have mercy on me for wanting to be there to see their faces.

[Melchisedec]

[quote]Sorry to post so late on this, but I'm just getting around to reading all of these posts. Melchisedec, some of your fumblings are just too funny to resist. The URL that "proves" evolution? From that bastion of fair and balanced reporting, The San Francisco Chronicle? And what did I waste my time reading about -- warblers that chirp in different languages? You may not realize this, but many humans also speak different languages. What else ...oh yeah! Some warblers have different markings, and won't have sex with other types of warblers!! In the human species, we sometimes call this racism. So that is your earth shattering evidence -- racist birds that speak different languages?[/quote]

Its apparent your analysis is quite 'skewed'.

[quote]Your problem is that you don't believe the history of it because: A) you didn't see it and B) it happened so long ago. Is this not so? Bet you don't have any problem believing that WWII took place, but did you see it? Do you know anyone who did? Well then what about the Civil War, or the Revolution? Do you believe that George Washington existed? Why -- just because you read it in a book by Simon & Schuster with a publishing date of 1999?[/quote]

This is another of your absurdities. We can easily prove the Civil War, George Washington happened and existed. It all boils down to the bible making extraordinary claims, and requiring evidence of the same magnitude. I would be skeptical, if George Washington flew over battle on a charriot of fire. I doubt you know my objections, considering you've been here all of what 2-3 days?

[quote]This is the age of instant gratification. We want it now. If it's not now, it's no good and on to the next thing. You and your ilk would have God reduce Himself to the status of a parlor magician by appearing every six months to remind this ADD afflicted planet that He was still around. Would that be good enough for you? You know, a pillar of fire here, some manna from heaven there. Nah, that stuff is too easily faked these days. How about a parting of a sea? No, Hollywood can do that easy. I know, how about if the Red Sox won the World Series? Yeah, bet that would make believers by the thousands![/quote]

If I'd witness the atlantic ocean turn to blood and part, I would be compelled to belief. All skeptics would be intrigued.

[quote]But do you know what's really sad? Nothing, but nothing at all will totally convince anyone of God's existence if they don't want to believe[/quote]

Your like a book where you know whats going to happen, in each comming page. You have no way of knowing this, or me for that matter.

[quote]. Unexplainable miracles happen all the time that cannot be accounted for by scientists or doctors. Fatima just happened 86 years ago, and the physical manifestations were witnessed by journalists, photographed and published in newspapers. (Melchisedec Googles Fatima and searches for most negative article.) People have forgotten that quickly, because they want to. Some people don't want there to be a God, because they don't want there to be a moral certitude, or an absolute truth. [/quote]

Some feel we have a higher level or morality than to kill infants and children who scoff at a bald man.

[quote]Well, I hope they enjoy their time on earth because, like I always say, one of these days there's going to be a lot of surprised &*%@$#?%&#$@*.[/quote]

(Goes to a corner, and opens up his left behind series of books)

[quote]
There is no burden on anyone here to prove anything to you. These good people are just trying to help you out. God made His case long ago. The burden is on you to accept it or reject it.[/quote]

I could make a claim that your words are destorying all the work we have done between ourselves to establish a friendly understanding. If you are the true Catholic, than I am glad I sit here.

[quote]
I would not be surprised if I caught some flack for being hard on you, and I'll respect that. But to be honest, I'm a little sick of you whining "I haven't seen the evidence" and "Prove it," when you've not presented an iota of credible evidence nor have you proven squat. You think that by taking a negative stance on everything, that precludes you from providing proof of your arguements and shifts the burden to the other side. [/quote]

IF we had people like you running the courts, everyone would be guilty until proven innocent. I've shown evidence that Noahs Ark did not happen, so you have just shown that you are essentially a liar. Your attack towards me amounts to nothing but fear.

[quote]But that is a cowardly way out and that is just what you are practicing, intellectual cowardice. In my heart I really believe that you could care less about learning anything and that the only reason you are here is to stir... something up. [/quote]

Considering you don't know me than I am not suprised. I know it not to be true, I don't need you to concur to validate that fact. Btw, I was invited here, and have never been asked to leave. In fact, there are people here that enjoy our conversations. You just simply hate me because I'm an atheist. You hate our types.

[quote]
The link in your signature tells me a lot about you. Like I said... a lot of surprised folks someday.[/quote]

Infidelguy is a great show with many wonderful guess and thought provoking subjects. You are welcome to participate.


As far as this tirade goes. I don't fear you like you fear me and people like me. If you have confidence in your belief, than you can back it up through dialogues. Those who do not want to take part in the dialouges refrain. This is after all a debate thread.

[quote]May God have mercy on me for wanting to be there to see their faces.[/quote]

So you want to see people burning in hell for your own pleasure. Your totally sadistic. I feel sorry for you.

Edited April 23, 2005 by Melchisedec

[jasJis]

[quote name='zealousdefender' date='Apr 22 2005, 11:46 PM'] "...But do you know what's really sad? Nothing, but nothing at all will totally convince anyone of God's existence if they don't want to believe. ..."

"...These good people are just trying to help you out..."

"...I would not be surprised if I caught some flack for being hard on you, and I'll respect that. But to be honest, I'm a little sick of you whining "I haven't seen the evidence" and "Prove it," when you've not presented an iota of credible evidence nor have you proven squat. ..."

"...Like I said... a lot of surprised folks someday.

May God have mercy on me for wanting to be there to see their faces..." [/quote]
zealous,
Dude, take a charity pill and re-read what you wrote.
You are right. Nothing will convince anyone of God's existence if they don't want to believe. Are you doing your part to make sure Mel doesn't want to believe? You need to read more of Mel's posts. He is a self described 'soft-aethiest', more akin to what you probably call an agnostic. No need to stomp on his ember of belief in a God.
Lot's of people have been dialoging with Mel to help him out. Don't ruin their efforts.
It's good that you aren't surprised that you are getting some flack. We all fail sometimes at patience. I've gotten publicly chastised a number of times for being too harsh too. We share an ability to be frustrated, zealous. That's one of the graces of this phorum, learning patience and charity. 'Dominus Iesus' by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Papa Ben) is a must read. Print it out and read it a few times. Yes we must reach out to correct, but we must do so in charity so we may do so in Truth as well.
jasJis

(btw, welcome to phatmass!)

[Paphnutius]

Nice avatar change again Mel...

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Apr 23 2005, 11:04 AM']
[/quote]
Ok folks, lets calm down a bit and show some respect and charity. On both sides.


Let's try to stay away from general assumptions about people and remember that some people have lurked here for MONTHS prior to posting - never assume that someone "just showed up".

That being said, keep it civil - you never know who's lurking.


God Bless!

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='zealousdefender' date='Apr 23 2005, 01:46 AM'] Sorry to post so late on this, but I'm just getting around to reading all of these posts. Melchisedec, some of your fumblings are just too funny to resist. The URL that "proves" evolution? From that bastion of fair and balanced reporting, The San Francisco Chronicle? And what did I waste my time reading about -- warblers that chirp in different languages? You may not realize this, but many humans also speak different languages. What else ...oh yeah! Some warblers have different markings, and won't have sex with other types of warblers!! In the human species, we sometimes call this racism. So that is your earth shattering evidence -- racist birds that speak different languages?

As for the quote above from you, nobody here initiated the claim that God exists. It has only been repeated here. God Himself told us of His existence many years ago. He proved His existence through many awesome signs that were recorded by those who saw them, and handed down through the generations.

Your problem is that you don't believe the history of it because: A) you didn't see it and B) it happened so long ago. Is this not so? Bet you don't have any problem believing that WWII took place, but did you see it? Do you know anyone who did? Well then what about the Civil War, or the Revolution? Do you believe that George Washington existed? Why -- just because you read it in a book by Simon & Schuster with a publishing date of 1999?

This is the age of instant gratification. We want it now. If it's not now, it's no good and on to the next thing. You and your ilk would have God reduce Himself to the status of a parlor magician by appearing every six months to remind this ADD afflicted planet that He was still around. Would that be good enough for you? You know, a pillar of fire here, some manna from heaven there. Nah, that stuff is too easily faked these days. How about a parting of a sea? No, Hollywood can do that easy. I know, how about if the Red Sox won the World Series? Yeah, bet that would make believers by the thousands!

But do you know what's really sad? Nothing, but nothing at all will totally convince anyone of God's existence if they don't want to believe. Unexplainable miracles happen all the time that cannot be accounted for by scientists or doctors. Fatima just happened 86 years ago, and the physical manifestations were witnessed by journalists, photographed and published in newspapers. (Melchisedec Googles Fatima and searches for most negative article.) People have forgotten that quickly, because they want to. Some people don't want there to be a God, because they don't want there to be a moral certitude, or an absolute truth. Well, I hope they enjoy their time on earth because, like I always say, one of these days there's going to be a lot of surprised &*%@$#?%&#$@*.

There is no burden on anyone here to prove anything to you. These good people are just trying to help you out. God made His case long ago. The burden is on you to accept it or reject it.

I would not be surprised if I caught some flack for being hard on you, and I'll respect that. But to be honest, I'm a little sick of you whining "I haven't seen the evidence" and "Prove it," when you've not presented an iota of credible evidence nor have you proven squat. You think that by taking a negative stance on everything, that precludes you from providing proof of your arguements and shifts the burden to the other side. But that is a cowardly way out and that is just what you are practicing, intellectual cowardice. In my heart I really believe that you could care less about learning anything and that the only reason you are here is to stir... something up. The link in your signature tells me a lot about you. Like I said... a lot of surprised folks someday.

May God have mercy on me for wanting to be there to see their faces. [/quote]
THis is posted at the top of the debate board for a REASON:

Charity is the form, mover, mother, and root of all virtues.
-St. Thomas Aquinas-

Be gentle to all and stern with yourself.
-St. Teresa of Avila-

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Priscilla' date='Apr 13 2005, 06:46 PM']
Such as?

How come there is "no official stance" on Creation in the Catholic Church?

I do not understand this?

Death entered the world through sin, but if you believe in evolution then you must believe that death came befre sin. 

Surely this is back to front? [/quote]
Evolution does not deny creation by God.

Evolution is a theory on how God did it.

Darwinism is a joke....


[b]Darwinism Isn’t Fit to Survive[/b]
By Robin Bernhoft
This Rock
Volume 14, Number 7
September 2003


Why should it matter to Catholics whether Darwinism survives or fades away? Hasn’t the Church tolerated evolution quite happily since it was first discussed at a Church Council seventeen hundred years ago? Didn’t the Holy Father all but endorse Darwinism in a 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences? Why should Catholics who are not six-day Genesis fundamentalists even bother to read this article?

For one very big reason, the same reason implied by John Paul II in his somewhat ambiguous 1996 address: Darwinism denies that God played a role in the creation of human beings.

This is a serious problem, because without God’s creation of the first two humans, there is no Fall, and, if no Fall, no original sin and therefore no need for a Redeemer. If no Redeemer, then no redemption and hence no sacraments, no faith, no Church.

As the Holy Father mentioned in his 1996 address, there are several theories of evolution. This is an important point to remember, because not all theories of evolution are hostile to the Catholic beliefs. Over the centuries, the Church has taught that:
[list]
[*]In the beginning God created everything out of nothing;
[*]He created the first man and woman specially and in some way;
[*]The soul is created by God, not produced by the parents;
[*]The first parents were tested, sinned, and fell from original innocence into original sin, which they passed on with all its painful consequences to their descendants.
[/list]There are a number of "theistic" theories of evolution that could be potentially compatible with these propositions. Such theories generally agree that God created matter, then set in motion laws of nature that allowed evolutionary change to occur. Some theistic evolutionists permit God to intervene from time to time to keep things moving in the right direction.

Most theistic evolution theories are tolerant of, or compatible with, the special creation of man. Some even interpret the molecular complexities of life as reflecting the designs of an intelligent being. Intelligent design theories of evolution can easily be harmonized with the Catholic faith.

But Darwinism cannot, for it assumes from the outset that God plays no role in biological existence. Darwinism assumes that the tendency towards evolutionary progress is an inherent feature of the universe and requires no divine involvement. God’s exclusion from nature is not a scientific observation, as Darwinians sometimes claim. It is an arbitrary philosophical starting point chosen before any biological data are even collected. Darwinism takes as given that evolution is a purely materialistic process that proceeds by random chance toward no particular goal. Since neither survival nor fitness matters to the empty Darwinian universe, "survival of the fittest" has no deeper meaning.


Dogma Disguised As Science


Darwinist apologists often stress data that support their philosophy and ignore data that do not. Hence it appears that, for many Darwinians, protecting atheistic philosophy is more important than preserving scientific objectivity. Darwinism is precisely the sort of materialist-origins philosophy the Holy Father warned us against in his oft-quoted address: "theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person" (Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996).

Darwinism, with its modern genetic refinements (such as Neo-Darwinism), dominates mainstream evolutionary thinking and dictates the content of school textbooks. Children are taught as scientific facts that the universe exists by accident, that life arose spontaneously from non-life, that all species arose from a common primitive ancestor, and that all biological diversity can be accounted for by random genetic changes (usually, but not always, in small increments) chosen over billions of years by the process of natural selection.

Some Darwinian evolutionists who go so far as to assert that qualities of soul like love, altruism, or piety are merely extensions of animal instincts are bold enough to claim the status of "scientific fact" for such speculations.

But are any of those assertions scientific facts, or are they just materialist philosophical dogmas masquerading as science? Does biology support Darwinism, as so many journalists and scientific authorities assure us? Or is the Darwinist version of evolution less an established fact than a tax-supported official ideology with some of the trappings of an established religion?

Let us begin where biology is presumed to begin, by considering the possibility that non-living matter could spontaneously generate life. Harold Urey, who won the Nobel Prize in 1934 for trying (unsuccessfully) to create life in the lab, wrote, "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe, as an article of faith [emphasis added], that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It’s just that its complexity is so great, that it’s hard for us to imagine that it did" (Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4).


Swamp Thing


To help understand Urey’s point, imagine a lifeless swamp a few billion years ago that "wishes" to generate life. It will have to build some proteins, the building blocks of life. Proteins are chains of amino acids. Assume that by some unknown process your swamp is able to generate amino acids. By natural generation, half of the amino acids will be left-handed, the other half right-handed.

But right-handed amino acids damage protein structure, so your swamp will have to find a way to get rid of them. Most biological proteins are strings of one hundred or so left-handed amino acids, assembled in exactly the right sequence. The sequence has to be exact, or the protein’s shape changes; change the shape significantly and you destroy the protein’s biological value.

As your swamp lines up its amino acids just so, it has to keep them from reacting with each other and with water, oxygen, calcium, magnesium, and a host of other chemicals—even though amino acids are highly reactive with many substances. Your swamp must also protect its amino acids from ultraviolet light, because UV light denatures protein. Since the sun is above the horizon roughly half the time, UV light is present roughly half the time.

All these factors make it hard for a swamp to produce a protein. Even if it did, one protein would not be enough. It would take about two thousand different proteins to make the simplest imaginable one-celled organism, and it would have to make all two thousand in virtually the same instant. Why? Because proteins and amino acids get rancid within hours of exposure to oxygen and/or ultraviolet light.

The chemical odds of two thousand proteins arising spontaneously in this way have been estimated by Darwinians at approximately one chance in ten with forty thousand zeroes after it. That is about as close to statistically impossible as can be, no matter how many billion years you wait for it to happen.

And to make matters worse, for spontaneous generation no help can be expected from evolution, because chemicals don’t evolve. Neo-Darwinism requires DNA to pass on information to descendants. But your swamp is nowhere near ready to produce DNA. Small biological proteins don’t have descendants for natural selection to choose between.

Your swamp also needs to create sugars and fats—but again, as with amino acids, not just any sugar or fat will do. Biological sugars must be right-handed, since left-handed ones sabotage biological structures. Statistically, right- and left-handed sugars form naturally in equal quantities. And biological fats must be the cis form, even though the mirror image trans form is the chemically stable type preferred by nature. Your swamp needs cis fats to make cell membranes, but trans fats—the type nature prefers—damage or destroy cell membranes. And as you might expect, cis and trans are found in equal amounts. So your swamp has to find a way to get rid of the left-handed sugars and the trans fats.

It also needs to produce a genetics system. It is probably impossible to assemble the components of DNA in the lab, even with high-priced technicians and modern equipment. Indeed, some parts of the DNA molecule have never been synthesized by human chemists. Is it reasonable to think these parts could be synthesized in a lifeless swamp?

Other parts of the DNA molecule cannot be synthesized in water. They must be synthesized dry, then somehow introduced into a water-based living creature without being destroyed on contact with water. No mere human scientist knows how to do that.

To make matters more complicated, DNA does not function unless it has several dozen regulatory proteins present. These are produced by DNA, but must be present before DNA can actually produce them. You need the whole genetic system all at once. There is no value in having just part of it. Asking the genetics system to produce itself and its autoregulatory proteins simultaneously is like asking your neighbor to become her own grandmother.

The need for the whole genetics system all at once (and not by small increments accumulating over time, as demanded by Darwinian theory) led a biological probability conference some years ago at the University of Paris to conclude, "We believe there is a considerable gap in the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. We believe this gap to be of such a nature [that] it cannot be bridged with the current conceptions of biology" (Schutzenberger in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, pp. 73, 75).

Darwinians are not deterred. In the words of George Wald, my old biology professor at Harvard University, "The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative [was] to believe in a single primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason, many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a ‘philosophical necessity.’ . . . Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.

"I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life though a hypothesis of spontaneous generation" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, August 1954, p. 46).

It would seem "scientific facts" have been replaced by "articles of faith" and "philosophical necessities." But let us get back to science.


Of Genes and Embryos and Five-Digited Beasts


Everyone agrees that many species have extremities that end in five digits. Humans have five fingers on each hand and five toes on each foot. Whale flippers, bird wings, and mammalian paws all end in five digits. The Penguin Dictionary of Biology assures us that this sharing of five-digited extremities is strong evidence that all life shares a common ancestor and is a major proof of the truth of Darwin’s theory.

Maybe when Darwin wrote, a century and a half ago ago, it seemed obvious that the sharing of five-digited extremities suggested descent from a common ancestor. But if human hands and animal extremities are variations on a theme pioneered by a common ancestor, it would be reasonable to expect that the genes of that common ancestor ought to be the baseline from which human hands, dog paws, bird wings, and whale flippers branch off as variations on a common theme. They are not.

Similarly, if these digits descended from a common ancestor, one would expect them to begin in roughly the same place embryologically, then branch off as they develop into hands, flippers, or wings. They do not.

The genes controlling the formation of five-digited extremities are completely different in each of these species. Embryologically, each of these structures begins in a different place, and develops through radically different routes into hands, flippers, or wings. Different genes produce different patterns of development, yet arrive at similar (five-digited) structural outcomes.

In other words, modern genetics and embryology show us that these similarities are not signs of divergent evolution from a common ancestor. The scientific data suggests that five-digited extremities might offer mechanically superior engineering. Whether this implies intelligent design or suggests convergent evolution is a matter of philosophical interpretation, not scientific fact.


A Theory with No Fossil Fuel


The fossil record is equally hostile to Darwin. His basic theory stated that evolution progresses by slow, cumulative changes over time. According to Darwin, individual species change gradually through series of intermediate forms into different species. Very few fossils had been discovered when Darwin formed this hypothesis. He expected that many fossils would be found of species intermediate between ancestral organisms and their descendants and admitted that if such fossils could not be found it would disprove his theory.

By Darwin’s own criterion his theory has been disproved. In the past one hundred fifty years, the fossil record has become nearly complete, yet there are still no intermediate fossils. Scientists have found fossils of 97.7 percent of land vertebrates worldwide, and almost one hundred percent in North America, and still they have not found the intermediate fossils Darwin said had to be there in order for his theory to be true.

No less an authority than the late Stephen Jay Gould called the absence of fossil support for evolution the "trade secret" of paleontology. (Gould, of course, did his part to keep it a secret in his years of evolutionary commentary on PBS, although he wrote quite honestly about these problems in the scientific literature.)

What you find in the fossil record is the sudden appearance, 600 million years ago in the "Cambrian Explosion," of a wide range of mature fossils. Some of these lasted for a while, then died out. Others have survived into the present. None changed into anything else.

Later, other fossils appeared abruptly in their mature forms, persisted, then either died out or survived to the present. None changed into anything else. There are no intermediate forms. The predominant fossil theme is stasis: species appear, stay the same, and either die out or persist into the present. The fossil record provides no evidence that any species was ancestral to any other species and no evidence of intermediate forms showing ancestral relationship.

One of the Darwinist hopes of the 1960s was that chemical traces could be found of ancestral relationships in the amino acid sequences of proteins common to various species. Literally dozens of proteins have been sequenced, in dozens of different species, but the data show isolated species, or families of species, chemically clustered in the same way Linnaeus clustered creatures by physical appearance over two hundred years ago, with no intermediates to suggest ancestral relationships. Once again, there is no reason to connect the dots.

Darwinists have defended their turf by postulating that a "biochemical clock" created the spaces between species. Their critics point out that it would be an odd clock that evolved at the same rate in mice and elephants, despite the huge difference between their generation times, yet ran at radically different speeds for different proteins.


Irreducible Complexity


On the whole, biochemistry has proven as depressing for Darwinists as the fossil record.

Worst of all for Darwin—and the final death knell for his theory—is the modern subject of irreducible complexity.

To be "irreducibly complex," a system must not only be very complicated but also must need every one of its many parts to function. An irreducibly complex system cannot function if any one of its parts is taken away. We saw an instance of irreducible complexity with the genetics system in our hypothetical swamp.

Such a system could not be created by a Darwinist approach, because Darwinism requires that complicated systems or organs be built up one piece at a time. In Darwinism, each piece must ordinarily confer a survival advantage, one chosen by natural selection.

Pieces that do not confer a survival advantage might be tolerated from time to time, but only as exceptions to the rule that natural selection results in changes that make survival more likely. Scientists assume that natural selection does not like to waste energy on useless items.

Irreducibly complex systems like the genetics system, the immune system, the blood-clotting system and the retina of the eye (to mention only a few) contain many elements that are of no value on their own. Some—particularly in the clotting and immune systems—contain dozens of elements, some of which would be fatal on their own without the balance provided by the rest of the system. Others would uselessly consume energy on their own and therefore might be a survival disadvantage, to be rejected by natural selection.

There is no way to develop irreducibly complex structures in a Darwinian way, as the theory currently exists.

Finally, there is no scientific evidence that microevolution—the adaptation of species to environmental change—can generate macroevolution—the development of new species.

Here is the bottom line: Darwin’s philosophical materialism is every bit as outmoded and sterile as was Marx’s. Perhaps we can look for a day when the Berlin Wall of textbook Darwinism collapses, and students will at last be free to study biology without Harold Urey’s encrusted atheistic "articles of faith" or George Wald’s godless "philosophical necessities."

Scientists outside the English-speaking world, particularly in France and China, are already far more skeptical about Darwinism than biologists in this country. Perhaps in the future a less ideologically driven biology will develop theories that explain the diversity of life in ways that provide a better fit with the biological data. In the meantime, Darwinism is not fit to survive.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robin Bernhoft, M.D., is co-author with Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J., and Camille deBlasi of Healing the Culture (Ignatius) and with Peg Luksik of Is Evolution Fit to Survive? (Family Life Institute). He is chairman of the National Parents Commission, a Catholic educational apostolate that produces the show Welcome Home on radio (nationalparents.com) and television (familylifetv.com) plus books and tapes on topics of interest to Catholics and others.





God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited April 25, 2005 by ironmonk

[ironmonk]

Here is something else about "Evolution"...

[url="http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/MessalGenocide.shtml"]The Evolution of Genocide by Rebecca Messall[/url]


Great read.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Don John of Austria]

Yall should check out the article I posted on open mic about creationism and the dinosaurs, the article I posted there blew me away.

[zealousdefender]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Apr 23 2005, 12:04 PM']

   




[/quote]
OK, this is long over due. I've had a busy weekend and have been busy with work yada, yada, yada.

Mel,

Basically I was feeling you out. I [i]have[/i] been lurking here for awhile, and you were one of a few that I felt were a bit antagonistic in their postings. (Though admittedly not the worst, you were the first to make a negative comment about one of my posts, so you were chosen by default.) In my opinion, most of your posts that I saw were condescending, mocking, and arrogant. I did not feel that you were engaging in honest dialogue with an open mind so much as engaging in one-upmanship. So, I wanted to see if you could take it as well as dish it out. Not so much. However, I [i]was[/i] surprised to get the sense that you may have been genuinely offended and/or hurt. For that I sincerely apologize. I never want to be the author of those feelings in anyone.

I'm not going to address your rebuttal to what I admit was basically a personal attack, because I would rather that you and I start with a clean slate, if that's alright by you. I would however like to clarify a couple of things. In some places, I purposely avoided referring to you specifically, and referred to "some people" instead. When I used that reference, that's really what I meant, not as a veiled reference to you. The reason being precisely because I do [i]not[/i] know you, nor the extent of your belief/non-belief. However, I truly feel that these things are true of [i]some[/i] people, and I wanted to make these points.

But most of all dear, dear Melchisedec, I'm so sorry if you thought that I would ever derive pleasure from seeing you or anyone else in Hell. Of course that's the only conclusion one could come to, reading what I had written. But that's really not where my head was at. I so firmly believe, and take for granted the fact that no one may judge who goes to Heaven or Hell except God, that my thinking just does not extend to that point. I literally meant that I wanted to see the looks on the faces of unbelievers the moment that they learn that there is a God. Whether or not they go to Hell I cannot say. Who knows the extent of His mercy? It may very well be that He would look into their hearts at that moment and see perfect contrition. Perfect contrition is when one is sorry for their sins because they offend God; in contrast to imperfect contrition which is being sorry for one's sins merely out of fear of going to Hell. I would think that if God saw perfect contrition in the heart of an unbeliever at the moment of judgement, He would exercise His mercy. But then, that is not for me to say. No more than it is for me to say whether anyone is going to Heaven or Hell, myself included. The man who taught me the Catholic faith just eight years ago regularly prays for the soul of Adolf Hitler in purgatory. It sounds bizarre to me, but his reasoning is that Hitler may have had a last minute conversion before his death. If so, there probably aren't too many people praying for his soul. He figures that if Hitler ever makes it to Heaven, then he will be a major beneficiary of Hitler's intercession.

All in all, I think you probably withstood that diatribe pretty well. Don't know that I would have done much better. Another thing I should point out -- that wasn't really all aimed at you. I was really taking advantage of that opportunity to vent some frustration towards a lot of people. I hope someday to get up the nerve to post my conversion story. Some insight to my background and the hostile and anti-Catholic environment in which it took place would lend some understanding to my venting sometimes.

Peace

BTW -- I think in the "Left Behind" series, that Catholics are left behind. We don't subscribe to rapture theology.

[zealousdefender]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Apr 24 2005, 10:49 AM']zealous,
Dude, take a charity pill and re-read what you wrote.
You are right.  Nothing will convince anyone of God's existence if they don't want to believe.  Are you doing your part to make sure Mel doesn't want to believe?  You need to read more of Mel's posts.  He is a self described 'soft-aethiest', more akin to what you probably call an agnostic.  No need to stomp on his ember of belief in a God.
Lot's of people have been dialoging with Mel to help him out.  Don't ruin their efforts.
It's good that you aren't surprised that you are getting some flack.  We all fail sometimes at patience.  I've gotten publicly chastised a number of times for being too harsh too.  We share an ability to be frustrated, zealous.    That's one of the graces of this phorum, learning patience and charity.  'Dominus Iesus' by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Papa Ben) is a must read.  Print it out and read it a few times.  Yes we must reach out to correct, but we must do so in charity so we may do so in Truth as well.
jasJis

(btw, welcome to phatmass!)[/quote]
The entire time I was writing that I kept telling myself that it was the wrong thing to do. But for some reason, I felt like it needed to be said -- well not exactly as I said it. Everyone here is so charitible and so patient, and what I see is a lot of that being exploited.... never mind. I think I'm just making excuses.

I know that love and patience win out in the long run. It just makes me me mad when the magisterium is treated so flippantly. To be honest, in a way I'm glad that I got all of that out there, but I'm even more glad to take it back. Does that make sense?

I suspected that Mel may actually be agnostic. Personally I believe that [i]most[/i] self-described atheists are agnostics. I feel that agnostics are at least being intellectually honest.

Anyway, thanks dude, for the correction -- and the understanding.

[Melchisedec]

[quote]
Mel,

Basically I was feeling you out. I [i]have[/i] been lurking here for awhile, and you were one of a few that I felt were a bit antagonistic in their postings. (Though admittedly not the worst, you were the first to make a negative comment about one of my posts, so you were chosen by default.) In my opinion, most of your posts that I saw were condescending, mocking, and arrogant. I did not feel that you were engaging in honest dialogue with an open mind so much as engaging in one-upmanship. So, I wanted to see if you could take it as well as dish it out. Not so much. However, I [i]was[/i] surprised to get the sense that you may have been genuinely offended and/or hurt. For that I sincerely apologize. I never want to be the author of those feelings in anyone. [/quote]

First of all. Thanks for the warm message. I didn't expect it and I appreciate the gesture. I really do. I don't mean to sound closed minded or arrogant. Its hard to illustrate my tone considering the limitations of text on a screen and the fact that simon cowel was my avatar. lol. I guess people kinda put the two together and thats my fault. It was more of jest than of trying to be mean or arrogant. I think I should maybe tone it down a bit, maybe than I wont come off so abrasive.

I was suprised that it hurt me. I guess thats the only way to put it. I've been around here for a bit and I've grown to really like it. I respect the people and admire the fellowship. The charity. There are alot of good hearts here, thats something I like to be around. Let me not forget to mention the great thinkers. The challenges to my beliefs people have made to me have not gone to deaf ears. It has really inspired alot of searching from within. Ok. Now no more mushy stuff heh. Ill still probably irritate you guys occasionaly

[quote]
BTW -- I think in the "Left Behind" series, that Catholics are left behind. We don't subscribe to rapture theology. [/quote]

I know its baptist thing, I just had to throw it in there

Regards,
Mel

[zealousdefender]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Apr 24 2005, 07:35 PM']THis is posted at the top of the debate board for a REASON:

Charity is the form, mover, mother, and root of all virtues.
-St. Thomas Aquinas-

Be gentle to all and stern with yourself.
-St. Teresa of Avila-[/quote]
yes ma'am. i'm sorry.

[zealousdefender]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Apr 25 2005, 11:17 PM']It was more of jest than of trying to be mean or arrogant.


I know its baptist thing, I just had to throw it in there

Regards,
Mel[/quote]
I can see that, looking at it from that perspective. I [i]have[/i] seen some humor in your posts.

And yeah, you got me good on the Left Behind thing.

No more mushy stuff -- back to business!

[Timothy]

It seems as if there are always 3 major arguments that athiest have always “hung their hats” on. That the universe is stagnant, the universe has always existed, and that the universe is random. Each argument that atheist have presented over time have been proven erroneous. Why would somebody want to “hang there hat/risk there soul” on something that has been proven wrong over and over again? Where as Christians have always states one absolute truth, and have never been proven wrong. I wanted to show you my findings by starting with a very brief explanation of what I found out when researching the history of how these arguments developed. So here it goes, and let me know what you think.



Since the time that Father Nicolaus Copernicus and his heliocentric theory was founded, contrary to the Bible, atheistic philosophy smelled blood. They began to hang their hat on the idea that the universe was a stagnant place, that it had always existed. That there was no creation and no creator. Then came atheists Darwin and Freud and there discovery of mechanisms that seemed to explain all of life's mysteries, they began to preach the "death of God".

Then in the 1920's a Catholic monk and physicist by the name of Georges Lemaitre proposed that the universe began in a primeval atom (the God Particle), a highly controversial idea. Then came an explosion in 1945 of an atomic bomb, that echoed this concept. Shortly thereafter, the physicist George Gamow proposed that the universe started in a similar manner. The Gamow Lemaitre model well accounted for a very important mystery called the "red shift". Back in 1927 the astronomer Edwin Hubble (for whom the Hubble space telescope is named) discovered that other galaxies were rapidly moving away from ours (causing light from these galaxies to shift toward the red end of the color spectrum), that the universe is constantly expanding (from an explosion, a beginning). He also discovered the rate at which this process was occurring, the Hubble constant (another one of those pesky constants! Mind blowing stuff on that later). Finally,
confirmation , in 1964 scientists from Bell Laboratories, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, stumbled on what was later known as cosmic background radiation. They were working on communication satellites and were annoyed to find low-level "noise" emanating from every direction in the sky. Physicists quickly realized that this was not
noise, it was an echo from the big bang billions of years before. Utilizing Hubble's constant, 15 and 3/4 billion years (a peculiar number). Suddenly, God was "resurrected".

Now I will try to expand on this and show that the book of Genesis, even as it was written, is remarkably based on these scientific facts.



After all it's all we have from early western civilization regarding the beginning of the universe, and our oldest written record of it. Moreover, science is proving through cosmology, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics that the facts stated in the Bible are true. Regarding evolution, it was Behe who said, "You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism (random mutations of genes sifted by nature's selection). Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it." In London's Museum of Natural History, there is an Evolutionary display (a whole wing actually) that shows how pink daisies turned into blue daisies and gray moths turned into black moths etc., over thousands of years, very impressive. Nowhere in the whole wing is there a display that shows a transition into different body plans as the theory of evolution holds.



I think you are also surely right about the Church's awful handling of dogma relative to science (Aristotelians had a lot to do with that though). They instituted dogma where there was no basis in the Bible and then proudly forced it upon civilization even in the face of evidence. For instance, no where in the Bible does it say the Earth is the center of the universe, in fact it states that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" (Gen 1:1)--- it even places the heavens before the Earth. But it is easy to suffer from such cognitive dissonance, especially in the heat of argument. Plus, there was real atheistic threat to the Church as many followers of science abused it for their own secular agenda.



So it is agreed, we should teach it side by side. This, so that future generations will know that the Bible is the truth and that the [color=blue]Theory of Evolution, as the fossil record really shows, is accurate only in terms of micro evolution as the Bible allows for. Nowhere in the staccato(gradually and continuously) fossil record does it show that Creation Theory is ridiculous. In fact it shows it as very compelling as even Darwin admitted, it was Huxley and his followers that deceived humanity. I am in the process of researching and will be able to write volumes on the holes of the fossil record and macro theory if you wish, but I will be suffice to say that the record shows that life began suddenly and immediately after water was present not the billions of years that evolutionary theorists relied upon. Additionally, the theory went that there was a gradual continued morphism into multi-cellular organisms and then into complex organisms, however, one -celled organisms remained for 3.2 billion years—no gradualism. Then suddenly, not gradually there was an explosion of life in the Cambrian era. But since then NO new phyla (basic anatomies) have ever appeared. Microevolution emerged, but animals simply developed within each phyla with no change in the basic body plan of their particular phylum. This and many other hard facts that shows God’s handiwork is what the fossil record undeniably, after 125 years of discovery, shows. [/color]



It is important to understand that the Bible is not written in the sterile mechanistic language of science just as science is not written to understand purpose for the universe. Still they are connected and with both we can understand the plumbing and the reason for the plumbing.



Randomness



Atheistic theories heavily rely on the notion that the universe is in random chaos, that it has always existed, and especially (in the past) that it was stagnant. The opposite is what physicists call the anthropic principle, that the creation, order, mechanics, and purpose of the 15 billion (approx.) year old universe was created for one purpose, life namely human life. That there is no chance in the universe as a whole and that the universe is of necessity. Thus far the great weight of scientific evidence sharply points in favor of this and is rapidly becoming scientific fact. If looking at the Earth in all it's form and beauty isn't enough to convince you that there is order in the universe and causation and purpose, let's examine the evidence of the material universe more closely.



If the universe is random then how can you explain the structure of matter and the mathematical constants of forces in the universe? Why are many of these constants mathematically related to the age of the universe? Moreover, these "ingredients" all combined precisely, are all required in order to have life in the universe. If any of these varied by even a minute degree, on the sub atomic level, the universe would be a drastically different place if it would exist at all. Take a few examples:



gravity is roughly 10 to the 39th power (I will present these in this fashion: 10 (39) as I cannot find the appropriate font) times weaker than electro-magnetism. If gravity had been 10 (33) weaker, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster
the nuclear weak force is 10(28) times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all hydrogen in the universe would have turned to helium (making water impossible)
a stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2%) would have prevented the formation of protons--yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing by 5% would have left us without stars
the very nature of water (so vital to life) is a mystery. Unique among the molecules, water is lighter in it's solid state than liquid form; ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and the Earth would immediately have been covered with solid ice


The list goes on. What's more compelling is that all these factors had to have been "in place" during the first nano-seconds of the Big Bang. The case for design is the only logical conclusion. All these factors leave no scientifically viable explanation for the case of randomness.



· Atheist theory: stagnant universe--failed
· Atheist theory: universe always existed--failed
· Atheist theory: Random Universe--failed