Creation or Evolution. What do you believe?

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally Posted by Townsend

Obviously, this thread is not long enough yet!

I voted for Creation.

Fine. What sort? If literal Genesis, then this thread is obviously too long, as it’s dissuaded you from reading it!

I've read several books on Creationism and Intelligent Design. There are problems with the old Earth theories that span every discipline.

Yep, that’s what they’ll tell you. Funny how these problems with the old Earth theories do not seem to affect the oil industry, which relies on them not being problems.

Most of these are too far out of my range of basic scientific knowledge for me to personally judge their merit.

Yet you accept them anyway?

I know God created Adam and Eve.

What species were they?

They sinned, and we are all now subject to death as a result.

And the six-inch long dagger teeth of T rex and the alimentary tract of lions are just perfect for grass...

Conventional evolution theory is not compatible with that truth, so I go with special creation.

Yet you freely admit that the science of it is beyond your grasp. <shakes head sadly>

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally Posted by buffalo

Robert Ballard had a PBS show recently about the flood. Seems to me he was pretty certain a great catastrophe had taken place and found evidence in the bottom of the Black Sea.

I've mentioned previously about how easy it is to get fed up with having to say the same thing over and over... but I've not often had it happen in the same thread!

Buffalo, see my post 235.

[Chris W]

Whether the evoutionists in this thread accept it or not, abiogenesis is evolution. I stumbled upon a web-site called trueorigins.com which provided the following information:

"Science textbook authors Wynn and Wiggins describe the abiogenesis process currently accepted by Darwinists:
Aristotle believed that decaying material could be transformed by the “spontaneous action of Nature” into living animals. His hypothesis was ultimately rejected, but... Aristotle’s hypothesis has been replaced by another spontaneous generation hypothesis, one that requires billions of years to go from the molecules of the universe to cells, and then, via random mutation/natural selection, from cells to the variety of organisms living today. This version, which postulates chance happenings eventually leading to the phenomenon of life, is biology’s Theory of Evolution (1997, p. 105).

The major links in the molecules-to-man theory that must be bridged include (a) evolution of simple molecules into complex molecules, (b) evolution of complex molecules into simple organic molecules, (c) evolution of simple organic molecules into complex organic molecules, (d) eventual evolution of complex organic molecules into DNA or similar information storage molecules, and (e) eventually evolution into the first cells. This process requires multimillions of links, all which either are missing or controversial. Scientists even lack plausible just-so stories for most of evolution. Furthermore the parts required to provide life clearly have specifications that rule out most substitutions.
The logical order in which life developed is hypothesized to include the following basic major stages:
1. Certain simple molecules underwent spontaneous, random chemical reactions until after about half-a-billion years complex organic molecules were produced.
2. Molecules that could replicate eventually were formed (the most common guess is nucleic acid molecules), along with enzymes and nutrient molecules that were surrounded by membraned cells.
3. Cells eventually somehow “learned” how to reproduce by copying a DNA molecule (which contains a complete set of instructions for building a next generation of cells). During the reproduction process, the mutations changed the DNA code and produced cells that differed from the originals.
4. The variety of cells generated by this process eventually developed the machinery required to do all that was necessary to survive, reproduce, and create the next generation of cells in their likeness. Those cells that were better able to survive became more numerous in the population (adapted from Wynn and Wiggins, 1997, p. 172). "

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess the responses this post will have: Winn and Wiggins are probably not what evolutionists consider legitimate text book authors. Tureorigins.com is probably not authored by what evolutionists consider scientific people, etc etc. Nevertheless, I will still draw my own conclusions.

Abiogenesis is an integral part of the Theory of Evolution. If evolutionists really deny that abiogenesis is part of the whole picture of evolution, then it brings all of evolution theory into question.

Shall we accept the theory of evolution as a reasonable explanation of how man evolved from apes, apes from some form of monkey, monkeys from some other life form, other life forms from even more primitive life forms and so on back through time, but then stop at an ambiguous imaginary wall (the first living cell)? That doesn't make sense to me. If evolution has to stop there, then it calls the whole process into question.

How does evolution really answer the question of how we see the complexity and variety of life forms we see today if it only works past the point of the first living cell? To put it another way, if evolution cannot answer how the pool of chimicals evolved into the first living cell, the most basic and first step in the evolution of the simplest matter, then why should I believe it answers how more complex matter evolved, even if evidence exists to suggest it is possible? Indeed there may be theories that have been shown to be possible, but it requires one to overlook the most fundamental problem.

As I have concluded for many years, evolution requires its proponents to ignore problems, which is why some evolutionists are insisting abiogenesis is not evolution, when it clearly is. Abiogenesis is the necessary first step to all of evolution, and it is anti-God. So it is in the evolutionists best interest, while posting on a Catholic web-site, to insist they are separate, so that they can continue to argue that evolution is not anti-God.

[Townsend]

Originally Posted by Oolon

Yet you freely admit that the science of it is beyond your grasp. <shakes head sadly>

Yes, the latest theories in astro-physics, microbiology, organic chemistry, and vulcanology are beyond my experience. I am not a scientific illiterate, merely not an expert. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough, my post was a simple response to the original question about evolution.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally Posted by ChrisW

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess the responses this post will have: Winn [sic] and Wiggins are probably not what evolutionists consider legitimate text book authors.

No, they seem to be genuine enough: Charles Wynn at least seems to have written a textbook of some sort or other (Natural Science: Bridging the Gap is not exactly informative!). However, the books they have written together are popular science. For lay people. In other words, not textbooks. Pulling quotes from pop science is like getting your Roman Judean history from Life of Brian. Entertaining, but not necessarily a good place to start.

I have two general evolution textbooks at home (Futuyma and Skelton), and some others on more specific topics. I’ll see what they have to say on the matter.

Tureorigins.com is probably not authored by what evolutionists consider scientific people, etc etc. Nevertheless, I will still draw my own conclusions.

And nothing we say can disabuse you. So draw away.

Abiogenesis is an integral part of the Theory of Evolution. If evolutionists really deny that abiogenesis is part of the whole picture of evolution, then it brings all of evolution theory into question.

What was I saying about repeating myself? Maybe this time it will get through.

Geology would be impossible without the earth. If we cannot explain the origins of the earth, then it brings all of geology into question.

Yes or no?

Chemistry would be impossible without elements. If we cannot explain the origins of the elements, then it brings all of chamistry into question.

Yes or no?

Geology takes for granted that there is an earth, and though where it came from is interesting, it takes it from there.

Chemistry takes for granted that there are elements, and though where they came from is interesting, it takes it from there.

Evolutionary biology takes for granted that there is life, and though where it came from is interesting, it takes it from there.

I am at a loss as to why this is so difficult.

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by Oolon Colluphid

I've mentioned previously about how easy it is to get fed up with having to say the same thing over and over... but I've not often had it happen in the same thread!

Buffalo, see my post 235.

Life is tough when you just can't seem to convert others to your point of view. (It is very interesting that many unenlightened public school administrators in several states where you have had a monopoly have now decided that evolution is and will remain a theory will now teach creation also.)

It would be amazing to see your views in a year or so of studying Catholicism with the zeal you have science.

Just a thought!

[Oolon Colluphid]

Abiogenesis is an integral part of the Theory of Evolution. If evolutionists really deny that abiogenesis is part of the whole picture of evolution, then it brings all of evolution theory into question.

Let’s try one more.

The Big Bang is an integral part of medicine. [Because if the universe had never come into being, there’d be no earth, no life and so nothing to get sick.] If doctors really deny that the Big Bang is part of the whole picture of medicine, then it brings all of medical theory into question.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally Posted by buffalo

Life is tough when you just can't seem to convert others to your point of view.

It’s got nothing to do with that. It’s pretty unusual to get creationists to admit anything at all, let alone “convert” one. I'm under no illusions here: the mind virus of faith inoculates people against competing ideas, no matter how well supported. I do this purely for the lurkers and my own mental exercise.

No, the problem is that it’d be nice if, once I’ve posted something, nobody else came along a few days later and repeated the same damned already-answered point! It’s called ‘reading the thread’.

It would be amazing to see your views in a year or so of studying Catholicism with the zeal you have science.

Firstly, most of Catholicism -- most of Christianity -- is not at all at odds with evolution. So it wouldn't make any difference.

And secondly, I spent thirteen years at a Catholic school run by the de la Mennais brotherhood. So I am familiar enough with Catholicism, thanks very much.

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by Oolon Colluphid

Firstly, most of Catholicism -- most of Christianity -- is not at all at odds with evolution. So it wouldn't make any difference.

And secondly, I spent thirteen years at a Catholic school run by the de la Mennais brotherhood. So I am familiar enough with Catholicism, thanks very much.

It is not part of the deposit of faith. The Catholic Church has been dealing with evolution since the beginning. It is not new to the Church


Roman Catholic Dogma

God the Creator

The Divine Act of Creation



The Beginning or Creation of the World

1. All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.)
2. The world is the work of the Divine Wisdom. (Sent. certa.)
3. God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De fide.)
4. The world created for the Glorification of God. (De fide.)
5. The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De fide.)
6. God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De fide.)
7. God was free to create this world or any other. (Sent. Certa.)
8. God has created a good world. (De fide.)
9. The world had a beginning in time. (De fide.)
10. God alone created the World. (De fide.)
11. No Creature can, as Principal Cause (causa principalis) that is, from its own power, create something out of nothing. (Sent. communis.)

[buffalo]

The Continuous Preservation and Governing of the World

1. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
   
2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)
   
3. God through His providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De fide.)
   
   

[buffalo]

The Divine Work of Creation



The Doctrine of Revelation Regarding Man or "Christian Anthropology"

1. The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
2. The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
3. Man consists of two essential parts--a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
4. The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
5. Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
6. Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
7. A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
8. The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
9. God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
10. Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)

[Vindex Urvogel]

Originally Posted by Chris W

Whether the evoutionists in this thread accept it or not, abiogenesis is evolution.

Irrelevant twaddle snipped,

Abiogenesis is an integral part of the Theory of Evolution. If evolutionists really deny that abiogenesis is part of the whole picture of evolution, then it brings all of evolution theory into question.


As I have concluded for many years, evolution requires its proponents to ignore problems, which is why some evolutionists are insisting abiogenesis is not evolution, when it clearly is. Abiogenesis is the necessary first step to all of evolution, and it is anti-God. So it is in the evolutionists best interest, while posting on a Catholic web-site, to insist they are separate, so that they can continue to argue that evolution is not anti-God.

This is really very, very, simple, Chris. Let me spell it out for you yet again. You can sit there and spout off tripe from TrueOrigins as much as you wish, and tell us how you just think abiogenesis is part of evolution because it sorta' kinda' is similar and makes "sense" to you that it is part of it. But when the fun arm-waving is over, we are left with one very simple, and very prerequisite method to demonstrate that abiogenesis is part of evolution. Explicitly show us where within the historical narrative explanation for the diversity of life and the origin of morphological novelties that we call evolutionary biology, abiogenesis is an explicitly stated nomological deductive statement comprising the chain of argumentation of which the evolutionary H-NE is formed. If you can do that, which you have not even remotely managed, then all's well and we can agree that abiogenesis is a part of evolutionary theory. If you can't, then your continued assertion that evolutionary biology is contingent upon abiogenesis is nothing less than fantastical make-believe, invented and perpetuated without the slightest shred of reality with which to substantiate the claim. If you cannot do this very simple thing, then you should at least have the honesty to retract your claim as mistaken. It is moreover incredibly ironic that you should pontificate on "ignoring problems" with evolutionary biology when you have never specifically stated what these problems are, provided data to support your assertion that they are in fact problems, never bothered to offer any data supporting an explicit alternative model for the diversity of life and the origin of morphological novelties, and generally done nothing but engage in strawmen fallacies and rhetorical flourish, while empirical data languishes on the sidelines. Until you can provide the needed confirmation that abiogenesis is an underlying N-DE of evolutionary theory (i.e., the evolutionary H-NE), you have presented nothing but your own wishful thinking in defense of that conclusion. Until you have provided data supporting your conclusions that there are problems with evolutionary biology and that an alternative model can better describe the diversity of life, you are in effect arguing nothing, instead choosing to engage in an elaborate rhetorical sham.

Vindex Urvogel

[mfaber]

Originally Posted by Townsend

I know God created Adam and Eve. They sinned, and we are all now subject to death as a result. Conventional evolution theory is not compatible with that truth.

Oh yeah, the "original sin" riff....
This may be off-topic, but since it keeps cropping up so let's explore it a bit. IF the Adam/Eve story is really about original sin, then perhaps you can explain to me why the Jews don't have any such concept as the "original sin"? The Adam/Eve story of Genesis is a part of the Jewish canon, co-opted by Christains when they adoped the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the original Jewish canon as the OT . The LXX was abandoned by the Jews in 100 CE, but Christians latched onto it because it's easier to twist the often questionable Greek to their advantage. What you don't seem to know is that the Jews don't have any concept of the "original sin" and regard it as a Christian corruption of the meaning of the text. What the Jews say about the Adam/Eve story......

1. Question: Do Jews believe in the doctrine of original sin?

2. Question: Isn't it true that humans are so innately sinful that they need an outside sinless agent to redeem them from sin?

3. Question: What are the implications of the Christian doctrine of original sin?

The doctrine of the "original sin" did not take the "form" until the 5th Century CE (centuries of arguing that such a thing existed and if it existed what was the nature and consequences the "original sin")

History of the Original Sin
EXCERPT:
We might perhaps be compelled to leave the doctrine of original sin in this indefinite form, if a controversy on these very points had not arisen in the fifth century between Augustine and Pelagius. Pelagius, a British monk, and his pupil, Celestius, denied that we have lost any thing earthly by reason of Adam's sin, or that this sin can be imputed to us, or that an original sin came into existence through Adam. On the contrary they maintained that death is an original and natural arrangement, and not in any sense a punishment of sin; that the divine image has not been lost, but that the race are to this moment born as guiltless and as truly possessed of free will as Adam was by his creation; and that we can call Adam the author of sin in our race only in view of the fact that he sinned first, and also seduced others to sin by his example; for the allurements and the imitation of bad examples are the only fountains of sin[....].

Augustine, bishop of Hippo in Africa, opposed this opinion with the utmost energy, and in opposition to it taught not only that physical death results from Adam's fall, but that the whole race thereby lost utterly both the divine image and free will; and that in their stead there now came into action a decided and resistless propensity to sin which has its seat principally in the soul and is perpetuated by ordinary generation. This original sin which shows itself in vicious desires, or the preponderance of sinful inclinations, brings down eternal damnation upon man although he may have committed no sins, and hence must also involve infants from their very birth. Original sin must thus affect the whole race because it is imputed to all men as a sin, causes them to lose the grace of God, and subjects them to the power of the devil. Hence no unbaptized person can be blessed. Original sin and death may have been imposed upon us by God as a punishment for Adam's sin which is imputed to us. That with these views Augustine must hold that men since the fall are wholly incompetent to any good, have utterly lost free will, and are enlightened and converted only by, an act of Divine grace, was as natural as it was opposed to the common doctrine of the earlier Christian teachers.

The concept of "original sin" is a rather late in the game interpretation of the story of Genesis by Catholic Christians (St. Augustine), as defined here:

The Catholic View

As with a large number of doctrinal points, Christians aren't in agreement on what constitutes "original sin", so there's more than just the Catholic POV:

Are Men Born Sinners?(more than one view here!)

If the Bible is the word of God and the doctrine of orginial sin is so "simple and true", then why don't Jews abide by the same concept and why are there different versions of the "Johnny-come-lately" doctrine in Christianity?

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by mfaber

Oh yeah, the "original sin" riff....

The doctrine of the "original sin" did not take the "form" until the 5th Century CE (centuries of arguing that such a thing existed and if it existed what was the nature and consequences the "original sin")

If the Bible is the word of God and the doctrine of orginial sin is so "simple and true", then why don't Jews abide by the same concept and why are there different versions of the "Johnny-come-lately" doctrine in Christianity?

Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul. It is found in the fourth Book of Esdras, a work written by a Jew in the first century after Christ and widely read by the Christians. This book represents Adam as the author of the fall of the human race (vii, 48), as having transmitted to all his posterity the permanent infirmity, the malignity, the bad seed of sin (iii, 21, 22; iv, 30). Protestants themselves admit the doctrine of original sin in this book and others of the same period (see Sanday, "The International Critical Commentary: Romans", 134, 137; Hastings, "A Dictionary of the Bible", I, 841). It is therefore impossible to make St. Augustine, who is of a much later date, the inventor of original sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

[Therese Martin]

Thank you to all who have participated in the discussion. This thread is now closed.