Secular discussion about evolution


#1

This thread is about evolution “theories” which claim the formation of human body(or any other species) is a natural process. for those think God took an active role in the formation of human body, use a theology thread.

  1. Is there any reliable evidence showing God take no active role in the formation of human body?
  2. No fossil evolution record is associated with bats. what’s special about bats? One theist evolutionist told me “God created bats directly, but let human form through evolution” Now what’s the “scientific” explanation?

#2

[quote=abcdefg]This thread is about evolution “theories” which claim the formation of human body(or any other species) is a natural process. for those think God took an active role in the formation of human body, use a theology thread.

  1. Is there any reliable evidence showing God take no active role in the formation of human body?
  2. No fossil evolution record is associated with bats. what’s special about bats? One theist evolutionist told me “God created bats directly, but let human form through evolution” Now what’s the “scientific” explanation?
    [/quote]

Isn’t this the Apologetics Forum in which we discuss defence of faith, doctrines etc. How can you tell people they can’t have theological discussions here. Maybe you should move your thread to the WaterCooler.


#3

I’ll take these out of order…

Well, I think the “scientific” explanation is that:

  1. You are wrong. There are fossil records of bats. See this page for a picture of one. There are not many fossils of bats, but it is incorrect to say that there is no fossil record. The University of California Museum of Paleontology has records of at least 202 fossilized bats (link).
  2. The site above gives two reasonable explanations for there being fewer fossilized bats than some other species. The first is that, due to their flying, they have small, light skeletons. Secondly, they tend to live in environments that are less favorable to fossilization.
    It is important to keep in mind that fossilization is a rare event, and no one predicts finding remnants of everything that ever lived as a fossilized specimen. Nor is a fossil specimen the only evidence for evolution of species.

I have never heard any biologist state that bats were specially created, and have to the contrary heard many discussing the fascinating genetic and morphological changes that occurred during the evolution of bats to allow flight, develop echolocation, etc.

  1. Is there any reliable evidence showing God take no active role in the formation of human body?

This question is not secular, contrary to the title of your thread. Additionally, it is completely outside the realm of science. Science can not show God taking an active role or taking no active role in the formation of the human body. God, being supernatural, is outside the realm that science can discuss. What science can say are things like:
Bonobos and humans share significant portions of their DNA, including viral insertions indicative of common ancestry.
The human chromosome 2 shares characteristics indicative of a fusion event of chromosomes 2A and 2B, which are separate chromosomes in chimps.
The hominid fossil record shows gradual transitions in skull morphology between an ape-like ancestor to the modern human form.
And so on. This neither proves nor disproves the hand of God as playing a role in formation of the human body, though it does strongly suggest that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
JRM


#4

OK Jason gave the correct answer, and he definitely knows a lot more science than me. I don’t need to answer. :thumbsup:

Richard Dawkins has a chapter on bats and their “sonar” in his book The Blind Watchmaker. Here is an article from Science Daily that states while the fossil evidence may be weak, the molecular biology evidence fills in some gaps about bat evolution. Google is only a click away. Type “Bat Evolution” Also PandasThumb dealt with Bat Evolution. There is enough evidence, not really a problem for evolution.

abc << (1) Is there any reliable evidence showing God take no active role in the formation of human body? >>

As Jason explained, science (biology) is silent on God. Here is a quote I’ve given several times from evangelical geologist Keith Miller on creation:

“The doctrine of creation really says nothing about ‘How’ God creates. It does not provide a basis for a testable theory of the mechanism of change. If it does not address this issue, then it does not contribute anything to a specifically scientific description of the history of life. I believe that all of creation is designed by God and has its being in God, but that does not give me any insights into the processes by which God brought that creation into existence. That is the role of scientific investigation, a vocation in which I find great excitement and fulfillment…It is the continuing success of scientific research to resolve previous questions about the nature and history of the physical universe, and to raise new and more penetrating ones, that drives the work of individual scientists. For the theist this simply affirms that, in creating and preserving the universe, God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, and given us as bearers of the divine image the capability to perceive that order.” (Keith Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation [Eerdmans, 2003], pages 13,14)

I accept that. Science is silent on the action of God. There is however good scientific evidence for human evolution – the fossil hominids, and molecular genetics are two areas of evidence. Ratzinger / Benedict accepts human evolution as I’ve quoted many times before:

“We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments.” (In The Beginning…)

I don’t have a problem, and Ratzinger / Benedict does not have a problem with human evolution. This isn’t that hard to understand, and I know you will get it someday soon.

abc << (2) No fossil evolution record is associated with bats. what’s special about bats? One theist evolutionist told me “God created bats directly, but let human form through evolution” Now what’s the “scientific” explanation? >>

Although Jason answered this above, let’s say for the sake of argument there was absolutely no fossil record for bats. Now what does that mean? That bats were created from scratch? If so, then what do we do with the excellent fossil record for the reptile-to-mammal transition? And the list would go on. Logically, all evolutionists need is ONE intermediate fossil. In fact there are many.

OK, now what you need to come back with is: (1) there is absolutely no fossil evidence for human evolution or bat evolution because we know all the fossil finds and genetics evidence are frauds, or (2) show how science demonstrates that God intervened and created bats and humans from scratch. Easy to do, no problem right? :smiley:

Phil P


#5

[quote=Jason Meyers]I’ll take these out of order…

Well, I think the “scientific” explanation is that:

  1. You are wrong. There are fossil records of bats. See this page for a picture of one. There are not many fossils of bats, but it is incorrect to say that there is no fossil record. The University of California Museum of Paleontology has records of at least 202 fossilized bats (link).

[/quote]

I mean evolution records. fossils show how a reptile/or mammel develop wing etc

Then how about other birds? Why other birds have more fossils?
As for the the 2nd claim, How’s bat’s fossil compared local birds?

“Bats are specially created” is from one of your pals, not any scientist.
They can discuss how bats develop wings, but they can’t find any evidence.

If you can’t exclude God’s role then all variation of evolution is meaningless. evolution works on the assumption God took no active role (breaking physic laws, performing miracles) . if God performs a miracle, then physic law trace back to the wrong origin. Why no scientific attempt to refute Jesus’s resurrection when it’s contrary to secular science? Just because Jesus is God. one shouldn’t apply physic law to God. Can God appear to humans travelling faster than light? definitely. this doesn’t mean theory of relativity can’t be used to calculate other things.
all evolution “theories”, theism or atheism, are working on the wrong assumption.


#6

[quote=Jason Meyers]I’ll take these out of order…

Bonobos and humans share significant portions of their DNA, including viral insertions indicative of common ancestry.

The hominid fossil record shows gradual transitions in skull morphology between an ape-like ancestor to the modern human form.
And so on. This neither proves nor disproves the hand of God as playing a role in formation of the human body, though it does strongly suggest that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
JRM
[/quote]

pumpkins share 75% of DNA with humans, remember? How similar indicate the same ancestor? has science worked it out? if the answer is just “very similar” then 99% indicate same ancestor, 1% less can’t be called not “very similar”. in the end pumpkin and human share the same ancestor, and according to evolution “theory” it’s not wrong, as pumpkin and human has the same ancestor of lifeless chemicals

The human chromosome 2 shares characteristics indicative of a fusion event of chromosomes 2A and 2B, which are separate chromosomes in chimps.

What’s the chance of this mutation? and since there’s no mid ground of incomplete fusion. so once done. changing is immediate.
chimps resemble humans, I accept. share the same ancestor, no.


#7

[quote=thistle]Isn’t this the Apologetics Forum in which we discuss defence of faith, doctrines etc. How can you tell people they can’t have theological discussions here. Maybe you should move your thread to the WaterCooler.
[/quote]

Evolution “theory” is a secular threat to faith


#8

I see poor answers again. Darn it.

abc << Why no scientific attempt to refute Jesus’s resurrection when it’s contrary to secular science? >>

I’ve answered this point many times. Some things are scientifically testable, and some things are not. Miracles are not testable by the scientific method. The resurrection of Jesus is (to quote William Lane Craig’s apologetic) the best explanation for the empty tomb, the appearances of Jesus alive after his death, and the origin of the Christian faith. This is a historical issue not a scientific one.

To quote biologist Darrel Falk again:

“The fact is that Christianity has core beliefs that are not accessible to the scientific method…The resurrection, existence of the Holy Spirit and immortality are all beyond the realm of scientific testability. Even testing the power of prayer will probably not bring scientists to their knees. The history of life on earth, however, is in a much different category. It has been possible to explore this using scientific methods…For the past century and a half, thousands of scientists from disciplines as diverse as physics, geology, astronomy and biology have amassed a tremendous mass of data, and the answer is absolutely clear and equally certain. The earth is not young, and the life forms did not appear in six twenty-four-hour days. God created gradually…We now know more about the nature of divine action. We now know a little about how God created life, and any time we understand something new about the activity of God, it brings us one step closer to God.” (Darrel Falk, Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology, page 213, 214)

What you need to do is (1) show how and why all the fossil evidence and genetics evidence (links above) for bats and human evolution is false or fraudulent, or (2) show how science demonstrates that God intervened to create bats and humans from scratch. That’s your simple burden of proof.

Phil P


#9

[quote=PhilVaz]I see poor answers again. Darn it.

[/quote]

Why human origin is science not history then? why history is science?
“scientifically” you can say someone stole Jesus’s corpse and the resurrected the Jesus is an imposter, or the whole Bible is a fake.


#10

[quote=PhilVaz]What you need to do is (1) show how and why all the fossil evidence and genetics evidence (links above) for bats and human evolution is false or fraudulent, or (2) show how science demonstrates that God intervened to create bats and humans from scratch. That’s your simple burden of proof.

Phil P
[/quote]

  1. fossils should be real, however results from the analysis of the fossil are false. methods to determine the age of fossil, rock are faulty
    catholicintl.com/noncatholicissues/letterbxvi.htm

  2. as this is a Catholic site. I can say if there’s one aspect of the formation of human has no direct intervention from God, you can worship whoever has control. be it another deity or chaos theory etc


#11

abc << Evolution “theory” is a secular threat to faith >>

Here we go again. No, it looks like it is only a secular threat to your faith.

But it is definitely not a secular threat to my faith, the faith of John Paul II or Benedict XVI who I’ve quoted so many times, nor the faith of many in here, nor the faith of many Catholic scientists, theologians, and philosophers appointed by the Pope himself to study the issues of science and faith. Pontifical Academy of Sciences, etc.

Where’d you get this pumpkins and humans are similar argument? Maybe here? I might just track that one down. Although at 58% it means we “branched off” from pumpkins a very long time ago. The 98% DNA with chimps means the branching occurred only a few million years ago.

A little copy/paste from my Theobald summary:

Why do humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence, when the chance occurrence of this is conservatively less than 1 out of 10^93 ? Why do human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by only about 10 amino acids from all other mammals, when the chance occurrence of this in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 1 out of 10^29 ? Why is bat cytochrome c much more similar to human cytochrome c than to hummingbird cytochrome c? Why is porpoise cytochrome c much more similar to human cytochrome c than to shark cytochrome c? Why does the phylogenetic tree data constructed from the cytochrome c data exactly recapitulate the relationships of major taxa as determined by the completely independent morphological data?

Why are the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans exactly identical? Why do the two DNA sequences that code for cytochrome c in humans and chimps differ by only one base, a 0.3% difference, even though there are 10^49 different sequences that could code for this protein?

Why are there very many examples of shared pseudogenes between primates and humans, with one hemoglobin, the ψη-globin pseudogene shared among the primates only, in the exact chromosomal location, with the same mutations that render it nonfunctional? Why do chimps and humans both share the same eight bp deletion in the steroid 21-hydroxylase pseudogene that renders it nonfunctional?

More Here. The evidence is strong. I’m beginning to think you won’t accept any evidence simply because you won’t. Or your real evidence against evolution is “I don’t believe it.” That’s fine, but that is called the argument from personal incredulity (and other names). There are a few of you like that in here, and I have now documented them in my Catholic Creationism and Jack Chick Comics article. :whacky: :yawn:

Phil P


#12

abc << (1) fossils should be real, however results from the analysis of the fossil are false. methods to determine the age of fossil, rock are faulty catholicintl.com/ >>

Now which fossils are you talking about? We were talking about bats and humans.

So this is your reliable scientific source? Some guy who thinks the Paluxy and other dinosaur-man-tracks are authentic? Not credible whatsoever. Hugh Miller has been a creationist kook for decades. I prefer the Hugh Miller of England in the 1800s, the Christian creationist geologist who knew the earth was old before Darwin.

The Sungenis/Miller article print version here with demolition job here

I respond to Sungenis on Age of Earth here and Evolution here

It might be better if you could point to anything in particular in the Sungenis/Hugh Miller article that you think is valid. Looks like none of it is.

abc << (2) as this is a Catholic site. I can say if there’s one aspect of the formation of human has no direct intervention from God, you can worship whoever has control. be it another deity or chaos theory etc >>

I don’t particularly understand your point 2. God is God whether he used 6 seconds, 6 minutes, 6 hours, 6 days, or 4.5 billion years to evolve us. The scientific evidence (which this thread is about) tells us 4.5 billion years is correct.

Phil P


#13

you don’t believe my source, why should I believe yours?

Mechanics law works by assuming there’s no interference from God. evolution “theories” came out by assuming God took no role in the forming of human body.

there’s a difference, though. Mechanics generally aren’t theological. Evolution “theory” from the beginning tries to challage Traditional teaching of Creationism. How can you expect this to be unbiased or true without discussing the role of God?

btw one can say eating KCN doesn’t affect his health. but he’ll be dead after eating it no matter how he denies it verbally.


#14

If you want to teach evolution “theory” in school, make sure you tell students “Evolution theory assumes God took no role in the formation of human body and there’s another authority controlled the process” want to teach science? make sure it indeed takes a science form.


#15

If you assume that God is good, and if you assume that telling the truth is good, then it seems that you have to conclude that God is not going to invoke a miracle to fool anyone. God is going to tell us a consistent story. Satan cannot create; Satan cannot perform miracles. Satan can fool us only by convincing us to close our eyes.

The scientific evidence is very clear and unequivocal about Evolution and the history of life, and the scientific evidence is very clear and unequivocal that human beings fit perfectly into Earth’s evolutionary “tree of life.” If you dispute this view, you’re fighting at the very least the enormous amount of evidence just at TalkOrigins, not to mention the work of tens of thousands of scientists over the last 150 years. No evidence stands which refutes the idea of heritable variation and natural selection working over the course of a billion years or more.

To hold that the scientific theory of evolution is wrong is to hold that we have been fooled by the evidence, that we have been fooled by God Himself.


#16

abc << you don’t believe my source, why should I believe yours? >>

Many reasons. The sources and links I give are backed by peer-reviewed literature and mainstream science. The source you gave is clearly from a creationist kook who has a long history of creationist kookiness. He’s been promoting the dinosaur-man-track thing (demolished by Glenn Kuban) for a long time and he and Carl Baugh still promote it, even though its been abandoned by virtually all creationists. You can’t trust anything Hugh Miller says about science. From a 1990 creation conference linked above:

“Kuban’s persistence and patience paid off, and he was allowed to present his poster session the next day following Miller and Patton. Miller’s presentation was a hodge-podge of claims similar to Carl Baugh’s in 1982-83, a rather strange appeal to carbon 14 dates which totally disregard the obvious opportunities for contamination of the samples, and a glowing coverage of Baugh’s dinosaur bones find in 1984 overlooking the damage done in their amateurish removal. Patton’s presentation was an appeal to line drawings and obscurantist water puddles (supposedly showing “mantracks” inside the Taylor trail dinosaur tracks) and to subsurface features below the “toe” depressions of the sectioned Burdick track.”

We’ve known the earth is very old well before Darwin. That fact has nothing to do with evolution. Your source is based on the new creationism of the 1960s, 70s, 80s. It is not science, it is poor religion, and was thrown out by the courts in the 1980s.

abc << Evolution “theory” from the beginning tries to challage Traditional teaching of Creationism. >>

Hugh Miller and Bob Sungenis are not defending the “traditional teaching” – they are defending a creationism cooked up by protestant fundamentalists in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s. Ultimately it has nothing to do with classic Catholicism or Catholic teaching which gives place to faith and reason. Read John Paul II, read Benedict XVI, read St. Thomas Aquinas.

Name anything in that Hugh Miller / Sungenis article you think is valid. You weren’t terribly specific. None of it will stand examination.

abc << “Evolution theory assumes God took no role in the formation of human body and there’s another authority controlled the process” want to teach science? >>

You know evolution theory says nothing about God. Evolution theory does not assume anything about God. You can be an atheist, you can be a Christian, you can be a polytheist, a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, agnostic, and still accept macroevolution (common descent) or natural selection.

If you don’t want answers, stop posting topics. OK you’re turn again. What about those bats and humans? :sleep:

Phil P


#17

When discussing science you use insult, scare tactics. this shows how evolution “theory” is preached/accepted. nothing scientific but just a way of manipulation.:wink:


#18

[ **

**We’ve known the earth is very old well before Darwin. That fact has nothing to do with evolution. Your source is based on the new creationism of the 1960s, 70s, 80s. It is not science, it is poor religion, and was thrown out by the courts in the 1980s.](“http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm”)

Baltimore Catechism teach earth is ~7000 years old. freedom of speech allows you to call Catholicism bad religion.:smiley:
This only shows evolution is no science. God created human. evolutionists create “past facts”. you can’t predict the past eh?


#19

abc << When discussing science you use insult, scare tactics. this shows how evolution “theory” is preached/accepted. nothing scientific but just a way of manipulation >>

NO, I use massive words, massive links, massive evidence. That’s the way I’ve been debating this apologetics stuff since 1994. It is the only way I know how to communicate. :smiley: However, me communicating with you = :banghead:

Do you have anything besides a creationist kook like Hugh Miller for your scientific claims? How about a recent article in NATURE or SCIENCE or SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN or NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC magazine showing an earth 6000 to 10000 years old, that bats or humans were created from scratch a few thousand years ago? Where is your science?

This is a secular thread about evolution. OK, so you don’t hijack your own thread, and break the rules, and what not that you accuse other people of…

Give me, right now, the scientific evidence that bats and humans were created ex nihilo a few thousand years ago.

Do you have any science to support that claim? I’m waiting…

That’s right, its called the PhilVaz scare tactics. BOO! Plus I haven’t gone to sleep yet so I’m a little crazy and bleary-eyed by now. :whacky:

Phil P :yawn:


#20

<< Baltimore Catechism teach earth is ~7000 years old. >>

The Baltimore Catechism? I took you to be a young dude, you remember the Baltimore Catechism?

Baltimore Catechism is not a scientific source, but I doubt that it endorsed a 7000 year old earth in the 20th century. In the 16th century maybe but not 20th century.

We now know the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the Catechism of the Catholic Church endorses this when it endorses modern science in paragraphs 159 and 283-284. Oops we have a contradiction. So much for the Baltimore Catechism. As well I’ve quoted Pius XII, John Paul II, and Ratzinger / Benedict endorsing an old earth of billions of years old. Sorry.

Now what about those bats and humans appearing out of thin air? You have any science to back that up? Not to beat a dead bat… :confused:

Phil P


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.