That’s good, because he’s right.
Show me the post where I wrote “thousands of years old.”
That’s good, because he’s right.
Show me the post where I wrote “thousands of years old.”
You don’t. You never clarify your own position. You just quote the Church documents and declare that you agree with them…but, the documents often have more than one view.
So, we are left with…the church says you can believe in some forms of evolution or have a literal 6,000 year view point. When asked which, you answer, yes. That’s no answer at all. You purposely avoid declaring one or the other. It’s like you either don’t have any views or you accept all the views…which is a bit of a contradiction for viewers to work with.
I’ve accepted that you won’t answer. You’re just Ed being Ed.
As Patty says, you avoid doing so. I really don’t know why. I could ask you right now and you wouldn’t give an answer. You’d talk around it. Like this:
How old do you think the planet is?
The 6000 year old earth hypothesis is so crazy. Do they simply use the modern Gregorian calendar? Or do they transfer the different calendars?
Because they use the genealogy. But the Gregorian calendar hasn’t existed in biblical times.
Well, this is a tad presumptive. Today, genetic material is passed on by descent. The mistake in saying this proves common descent is that it presupposes there are no other possible ways that living things could possibly share genetic material, yet the creationist would argue that indeed there are (I have often heard, “common design indicates a common designer”, to paraphrase). If it can be logically (and not just factually, as I will explain) demonstrated that the only way living things can possibly share genetic material, then it would be a more valid demonstration of fact. Demonstrating that this is the only way it is done today would not be sufficient, as that presupposes that the same natural processes going on now have been the processes from the beginning of Creation, which is precisely the presumption creationists (at least young earth) would reject (traditionally, it would be that the natural order came into place after creation was finished). Of course, factually speaking, descent isn’t the only way to share genetic material, at least on the single-cell level, as demonstrated by horizontal gene transfer.
It also equates evolution with natural selection, which isn’t quite accurate (though they are connected). For instance, if I am not mistaken, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe believes in common descent, but not evolution. Perhaps this is what you meant when you referred to “theory” as opposed to “fact”.
I think there are more creationists than some people realize, particularly in Asia and Africa. Not to say it isn’t a minority opinion either way (though I am not sure of survey data to this effect, so it is mostly just from what I have seen/read that I say this, which is of course anecdotal).
This is an example of a non-testable hypothesis. If a hypothesis cannot be tested in any conceivable way it does not trigger the scientific process.
For example I could say: “My God made the world five minutes ago and everything in it to look like it was older than five minutes old including us and all our memories”. This hypothesis explains everything. But it can’t be tested. Neither can the hypothesis of my wife, who says “No, it was our dog who did this, and it was an hour ago. Our dog is the creator of the universe”.
The idea that there is a God, who separately created species (a common Christian view in the 19th century) or who separately creates the body of every living thing using a similar divine template (the view of JWs, as explained on my doorstep) is of this type. It is one of a million possible imaginings that cannot be tested.
By ‘cannot be tested’ I mean ‘nothing can be thought of that would disprove it’.
Science does not deal in such things. If I say ‘There were no humans at the time of dinosaurs’ I can think of discoveries that would disprove this.
‘Horizontal gene tranfer’ is certainly possible, but the genes so transferred have at some point been received through descent at leat in multi-cellular animals.
I’m not arguing that it should, but the fact is that the traditional view of Creation was prior to the theory of evolution. The presumption of the traditional Creationism would be that you literally cannot scientifically (by which I mean empirically) investigate the original creation of the world, as it did not involve the natural processes going on now.
So that’s the difference in presumptions at work.
It should be mentioned that this doesn’t stop some creationists trying to make predictions within their model of creation.
I also don’t want any mistake to be made: I am pointing out differing worldviews here, not arguing biology. I am not a biologist and not qualified to do that super-well or go too “deep” in these analyses. There are many other threads on these topics anyhow.
We are talking about evolution, not the original ‘creation’ of the world.
If you note the context of that sentence, I was speaking of the traditional creationism wherein the world and all its parts (including animals) were created and then the natural order established following this (after the 6 days), not the evolutionary perspective.
I am glad to see that nothing has changed since quarantine kicked in. lol. I am still getting together my last minute home office, so it has been hard to be able to continue on conversations just working from one screen.
Ha! Nothing like a little chaos to disrupt everything!. Hope you get settled quickly and good to see you again.
I posted this in a different thread but I think it is also relevant here.
Creationism is harmful. We need to put this to bed because Creationism is birthing atheists. Listen! Even if evolution were true it wouldn’t change anything! If evolution were proven true would that change the historical reality and fact that Jesus of Nazareth lived the most miraculous life in history? Would it change the fact that Jesus was crucified on the cross and rose again 3 days later? No, it would not.
Dr. WILLIAM LANE CRAIG (Analytic Philosopher and Theologian)
during a debate with Atheist philosopher Christopher Hitchens said.
"Now he did make some remarks about evolution and he insinuated that this was somehow incompatible with Theism. I have two points to make about this. First I have to say is that Biological evolution is simply irrelevant to the truth of Christian Theism. Genesis 1 fits all manner of different interpretations and one is by no means committed to a 6 day creationism. Is the concept of creationism required of all persons who trust in the creator God of scripture? Most Christians who are either engaged with scientific fields or biblical scholarship have concluded that the creationist picture of the world’s formation is not a necessary component of Christian belief. Nor is this a retreat caused by modern science. St. Augustine in the A.D. 300s wrote a commentary on Genesis and pointed out that the days do not need to be taken literally nor need the creation be a few thousand years ago. Indeed he suggested that God made the world with certain special potencies that would gradually unfold over time and develop. This interpretation came 1,500 years before Darwin! So, it is not a forced retreat in the face of modern science!
Any doubts I would have about the theory of biological evolution would be scientific and not biblical. Barrow and Tipler two physicists who wrote the Anthropic Cosmological principle lists 10 steps in the course of Human Evolution and each of which is so improbable that before it would occur the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the Earth. They calculate the probability of the development of the human genome to be somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power to the 110,000 power and 4 to the negative 360th power to the 110,000 power! So, if evolution did occur on this planet it was literally a miracle and therefore evidence for the existence of God!" BOOM! CROWD GOES CRAZY
"So, I don’t think this is an argument for Atheism.Quite the contrary it provides good grounds for thinking that God super intended the process of biological development. So, the Christian can be open to the evidence and follow it to where it leads. You have to feel sorry for the atheist because their presuppositions determine the outcome no matter how improbable or fantastical because they cannot follow the evidence to where it leads. However, if there is a fine tuner and creator of the universe then already in the initial conditions of the big bang you have an elaborately designed universe that permits the evolution and existence of intelligent life."
The question about evolution has already been answered by Saints like Augustine and John Paul II
It has been a trip. It feels like it has been a month, but it has only been two weeks (technically 16 days for me.)
And I’m 4 days into 14 of being confined to barracks. My wife flew in from overseas so is compelled to self isolate for a fortnight. We can’t keep isolated from each other at home so I’m in the same boat.
Stay healthy everyone…
That’s assuming that the human genome needed to be the end result.
The chances of dealing any sequence of cards from a full pack is 1. But if you select a sequence in advance and then deal the cards, then the chances of hitting that sequence is around 1 in 10 to the power 68.
The sequences of events that had to happen from the very start of existence for you to be sitting there reading this is even more improbable than the numbers you quoted. To all intents, the chances of it happening are zero. But you are reading this. So it must be a miracle.
If you think this has all been planned then it’s all literally a miracle. But you have to start with a concept of an all powerful deity who has planned it all in order for those figures, which intend to prove the existence of an all pwerful deity, to make sense.
So you have presumed the conclusion in order to prove it.
“In the beginning there was nothing and darkness was on the face of the deep… and God said Let there be light!”
The greatest miracle in the Bible has already occurred and we have scientific evidence for it.
I just mentioned it. The creation of the universe out of nothing. Even Atheists today are admitting the scientific truth that Space, Matter, and Time had a beginning out of nothing. So, whatever created Space, Matter, and Time can’t be made of Space Matter and Time. What is
-Spaceless, -Timeless, -Immaterial, -Powerful, -Personal, -Intelligent?
Think about this everyone. If he can create the whole show out of nothing then everything else in the Bible is at least within the realm possibility.
We do know the human genome was the end result. What’s your point despite astronomically impossible odds the human genome developed in a relatively small space of time. Barrow and Tippler calculated that in the time for it to occur the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the earth. What are the chances you take a shuffled deck of cards and threw it into the air and it lands on the ground in perfect order organized by suit and number. The chances of that happening randomly are near impossible. If you showed me a deck and it was ordered by suit and number and you try to tell me that it happened randomly? I would call you a liar and know that you intelligently organized the deck.
The universe being born out of nothing is a miracle, life developing out of dead materials is a miracle, the development of the human genome is a miracle, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a miracle.
So those huge odds that you quoted are only viable if humans were meant to be the end result and the system was designed to produce that result. Just like the pack would have needed to have been designed by me for it to come out in suit order. The huge odds are meant to show that the whole shebang has been designed. But they are only valid if it’s all been designed.
You need the assumption that human life was to be the end result (and therefore designed) to prove that the odds of human life being the end result by chance are impossible. You have to assume what you need to conclude to get to the conclusion.
It’s called begging the question.
Intelligent life able to ponder the question would seem to me inherently more valuable compared to non-intelligent life or non-intelligent non-life, to whom it would be meaningless. If a militia all shoots at you, but somehow all miss, you don’t just go, “Well, of course. If it were any other way I couldn’t be here”. You’d think something is up with the militia. Maybe they need better guns, maybe they’re chocolate soldiers.