The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Monty Burnz

tetrapak wrote: »

I personally never believed in Darwinism or evolution, and my russian wife tells me in her schools/universities Darwinism was given almost no coverage in their education as it was considered a nonsense theory that was very unscientific, which I found interesting considering they were/are an athiest society by-and-large.

This is odd, I've scoured the internet for any discussion or proof of your claim that evolution wasn't taught in Russia and the only references to it come from creationist sources, and even they aren't stating that it wasn't taught there - just a reference to a 'legal controversy'.

This reminds me of Rick Santorum telling his Republican fans that in the Netherlands they euthanize all of their old people, knowing that the people he is talking to will never find out any different.

Can you back up your claim at all, Tetrapak? I could of course send an email to my Russian college friend to see what she says about it, but I'd like to see what you come up with first.

Zombrex

Soviet Russia taught Lamarckian evolution instead of Darwinian evolution as it was a closer match to Stalins ideas of how genetics worked, that through hard work in this life you can improve the genetic properties of your off spring. Applying Lamarckian genetics (which had already been discredited by this time in the rest of the world) lead to massive crop failures throughout Russia.

This was all in the first half of the century through, so not sure how it would relate to tetrapak's wife. Perhaps she grew up in areas where Lamarckian evolution was still taught in some sort of USSR nostalgia.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Soviet Russia taught Lamarckian evolution instead of Darwinian evolution as it was a closer match to Stalins ideas of how genetics worked, that through hard work in this life you can improve the genetic properties of your off spring. Applying Lamarckian genetics (which had already been discredited by this time in the rest of the world) lead to massive crop failures throughout Russia.

This was all in the first half of the century through, so not sure how it would relate to tetrapak's wife. Perhaps she grew up in areas where Lamarckian evolution was still taught in some sort of USSR nostalgia.

It was in the 1930s, thanks to a scientific quack called Lysenko. So, if tetrapak's wife was in University at the time then that would make her at least 92 years old.

Monty Burnz

Zombrex wrote: »

Soviet Russia taught Lamarckian evolution instead of Darwinian evolution as it was a closer match to Stalins ideas of how genetics worked, that through hard work in this life you can improve the genetic properties of your off spring. Applying Lamarckian genetics (which had already been discredited by this time in the rest of the world) lead to massive crop failures throughout Russia.

This was all in the first half of the century through, so not sure how it would relate to tetrapak's wife. Perhaps she grew up in areas where Lamarckian evolution was still taught in some sort of USSR nostalgia.

Good lord. It just goes to show how ideology can pervert and destroy science and scientific progress. Thanks for the info.

Monty Burnz

PDN wrote: »

It was in the 1930s, thanks to a scientific quack called Lysenko.

I've read a few articles about Lysenko previously - really interesting stuff, and a thoroughly unpleasant character.

Lysenko's genetic theories were grounded in Lamarckism. His work was primarily devoted to developing new techniques and practices in agriculture. But he also contributed a new theoretical framework which would become the foundation of all Soviet agriculture: a discipline called agrobiology that is a fusion of plant physiology, cytology, genetics and evolutionary theory. Central to Lysenko's tenets was the concept of the inheritability of acquired characteristics. In 1932 Lysenko was given his own journal, The Bulletin of Vernalization, and it became the main outlet for touting emerging developments of Lysenkoist research.[6]


One of the most celebrated of the earliest agricultural applications developed by Lysenko was a process of increasing the success of wheat crops by soaking the grain and storing the wet seed in snow to refrigerate over the winter ("vernalization"). Though his work was scientifically unsound on a number of levels, Lysenko's claims delighted Soviet journalists and agricultural officials, who were impressed by its promise to minimize the resources spent in theoretical scientific laboratory work. The Soviet political leadership had come to view orthodox science as offering empty promises, as unproductive in meeting the challenges and needs of the Communist state. Lysenko was viewed as someone who could deliver practical methods more rapidly, and with superior results.[5]

Lysenko himself spent much time denouncing academic scientists and geneticists, claiming that their isolated laboratory work was not helping the Soviet people. By 1929 Lysenko's skeptics were politically censured, accused of offering only criticisms, and for failing to prescribe any new solutions themselves. In December 1929, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin gave a famous speech praising "practice" above "theory", elevating the political bosses above the scientists and technical specialists. Though for a period the Soviet government under Stalin continued its support of agricultural scientists, after 1935 the balance of power abruptly swung towards Lysenko and his followers. Lysenko was put in charge of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union and made responsible for ending the propagation of "harmful" ideas among Soviet scientists. Lysenko served this purpose by causing the expulsion, imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists and eliminating all study and research involving Mendelian genetics throughout the Soviet Union. This period is known as Lysenkoism. He bears particular responsibility for the persecution of his predecessor and rival, prominent Soviet biologist Nikolai Vavilov, which ended in 1943 with the imprisoned Vavilov's death by starvation. In 1941 Lysenko was awarded the Stalin Prize.

cowzerp

J C wrote: »

It was universal ... and that is proven by the worldwide distribution of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks.
... and it was only about 8,000 years ago ... and that is why modern recorded Human history begins about 8,000 years ago!!!

So can you explain why not even 1 human has ever been found buried with the Dinosaurs that are believed to be millions of years dead?

The flood is your reason for all the buried dinosaurs etc yet in the depths that are believed to be millions of years ago you won't find humans or any animal that was not evolved at the time.

I look forward to reading your explanation for this.

Monty Burnz

cowzerp wrote: »

So can you explain why not even 1 human has ever been found buried with the Dinosaurs that are believed to be millions of years dead?

The flood is your reason for all the buried dinosaurs etc yet in the depths that are believed to be millions of years ago you won't find humans or any animal that was not evolved at the time.

I look forward to reading your explanation for this.

Well obviously there isn't a satisfactory answer to this, but you can expect to hear some attempts to rationalise it along the lines seen here. For example:

Most people are puzzled why antediluvian buildings have not been found. After all the construction of cities is clearly referred to in the Bible.
"And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch." - Genesis 4:17
The construction of dwelling space is driven almost exclusively by our need to shelter ourselves from the weather. Prior to the flood, the atmosphere is thought to have been much more stable than it is today, providing an almost globally uniform temperature. It is believed that there were no dramatic seasonal temperature fluctuations, or even significant differences in temperature between the polar and equatorial regions. This is evident by the discovery of fossilized ferns and amphibians on Antarctica. It is also believed that it had not rained prior to the flood, but the earth was instead watered by free-flowing springs and mist. Given that this type of perfect environment likely existed before the flood, it might be better to ask why people would build houses if they needed no shelter from the elements? One answer would be: to protect ourselves from wild animals and other humans. The earth was a violent place before the flood.
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." - Genesis 6:5
Nevertheless, any constructions during this period were likely made of wood or dried mud. These materials are simply not expected to stand up well under catastrophic flood conditions. Even baked clay will dissolve if saturated for prolonged periods. This type of material has historically only been used to extremely arid regions for this reason. If they did not need to build shelters from the weather, and had never built a monument before the tower of Babel, what would we expect to find? Perhaps some protective fencing or walls might still remain if they could have survived a raging onslaught greater than the dam breech that hollowed-out the Grand Canyon. There may also be some clothing made of animal skins or stone tools, but no reason to expect anything more significant. Given the presuppositions of evolutionists and the certainty of their belief, any trace evidence of a antediluvian civilizations would likely be dismissed outright and we would never hear about it.

There are a couple of problems with this: we are expected to believe that nobody bothered to build anything out of stone because the weather was so nice (everywhere in the world). The linked source also dates the flood to 2438 BC. The Great Pyramid at Giza (which is not the oldest surviving Egyptian building either) was completed at around 2560 BC - 200 years before the flood (when there were no stone buildings...).

There are vastly older examples of the remains of buildings in the Indus valley and Turkey (to name just two).

So to believe the stuff about humans and dinosaurs being contemporaneous, you don't just have to reject the sciences of biology and geology, you have ignore archaeology and history too.

But surely any price is worth paying to hold on to your beliefs?

Cossax

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well obviously there isn't a satisfactory answer to this, but you can expect to hear some attempts to rationalise it along the lines seen here. For example:

There are a couple of problems with this: we are expected to believe that nobody bothered to build anything out of stone because the weather was so nice (everywhere in the world). The linked source also dates the flood to 2438 BC. The Great Pyramid at Giza (which is not the oldest surviving Egyptian building either) was completed at around 2560 BC - 200 years before the flood (when there were no stone buildings...).

There are vastly older examples of the remains of buildings in the Indus valley and Turkey (to name just two).

So to believe the stuff about humans and dinosaurs being contemporaneous, you don't just have to reject the sciences of biology and geology, you have ignore archaeology and history too.

But surely any price is worth paying to hold on to your beliefs?

You don't need to go too far to find stone buildings pre-dating the pyramids - Newgrange was a couple of hundred years old when Giza was being worked on.

Monty Burnz

Cossax wrote: »

You don't need to go too far to find stone buildings pre-dating the pyramids - Newgrange was a couple of hundred years old when Giza was being worked on.

Indeed. It was a standing joke with my friends in college that we compared what the Egyptians and the 'Irish' were able to build around the same time periods

What I find interesting about this is just how much human knowledge you need to throw out to be able to accept the Creationist perspective, and I find it quite scary that there are so many people so keen to do just that rather than look at the root of the problem: their choice of beliefs.

I find no conflict between Christianity and science is necessary at all if you leave science do the science and Christianity do the religion.

tommy2bad

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Indeed. It was a standing joke with my friends in college that we compared what the Egyptians and the 'Irish' were able to build around the same time periods

What I find interesting about this is just how much human knowledge you need to throw out to be able to accept the Creationist perspective, and I find it quite scary that there are so many people so keen to do just that rather than look at the root of the problem: their choice of beliefs.

I find no conflict between Christianity and science is necessary at all if you leave science do the science and Christianity do the religion.

It is interesting and a relatively modern phenomena. I have talked about this with some people who insist on biblical 7 day creation and as far as I can make out, they don't care if its factual or not. What matters is that it supports a world view that they can comprehend and be comfortable with.
Evolution and geology are complicated and require special knowledge to fully understand whereas creationism is simple and expresses a truth they truly believe. The irony is thats why the story was written and accepting it as such is fine. Insisting on it being a valid fact based theory is not what the writers intended. Doing so misses the point of the story.
As to the people who propagate this view? their agenda is money, power and influence.

RichieC

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There are a couple of problems with this: we are expected to believe that nobody bothered to build anything out of stone because the weather was so nice (everywhere in the world). The linked source also dates the flood to 2438 BC. The Great Pyramid at Giza (which is not the oldest surviving Egyptian building either) was completed at around 2560 BC - 200 years before the flood (when there were no stone buildings...).

There are vastly older examples of the remains of buildings in the Indus valley and Turkey (to name just two).

So to believe the stuff about humans and dinosaurs being contemporaneous, you don't just have to reject the sciences of biology and geology, you have ignore archaeology and history too.

But surely any price is worth paying to hold on to your beliefs?

Dang, I was listening to Coast to coast AM the other evening and they had some quack on. kept talking about water damage on the Pyramid and I just knew he was egging at something... should have guessed it was noahs flood... :rolleyes:

Sin City

cowzerp wrote: »

So can you explain why not even 1 human has ever been found buried with the Dinosaurs that are believed to be millions of years dead?

The flood is your reason for all the buried dinosaurs etc yet in the depths that are believed to be millions of years ago you won't find humans or any animal that was not evolved at the time.

I look forward to reading your explanation for this.

They are all fossilized in Atlantis

Simplez

dlofnep

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I don't think science can fully explain, in way that is satisfactory to me, why I love my family, why I find beauty in nature, and why a parent would sacrifice their life for their children. Now I'm sure there is a lot of chemistry going on in the brain in relation to this, but I think there is a little more to it as well!

You love your family, because it is the result of evolution.. A strong-knit family that looked out for each other on the plains of Africa had a better chance at survival. The beauty in nature is something everyone can appreciate - atheist or theist. I don't find it to be a challenging question that only faith could explain. I like nature, because I am an intelligent being, capable of subjective likes and dislikes.

Some people like shooting foxes (many whom are Christian), I like the beauty in a living fox. Life is what we make it - there is no ultimate meaning..

wolfsbane

tommy2bad said:

It is interesting and a relatively modern phenomena.

Not at all. The historic position of the Church has been to accept Genesis as normal history. That was abandoned relatively recently, but re-affirmed subsequently as believers returned to a Scripture-as-final-authority position.

I have talked about this with some people who insist on biblical 7 day creation and as far as I can make out, they don't care if its factual or not.

That would be very unusual for creationists.

What matters is that it supports a world view that they can comprehend and be comfortable with.

Most creationists would not be comfortable with evolution being factual and creation not. Creationism holds to the factuality of the Genesis creation account, that is is not a myth, literary framework, parable or anything but historical narrative.

Evolution and geology are complicated and require special knowledge to fully understand whereas creationism is simple and expresses a truth they truly believe.

Yes, the religious content of creationism is simple and straight-forward. But it has a scientific aspect too, and it is presented by highly qualified scientists who have the special knowledge to understand the science.

The irony is thats why the story was written and accepting it as such is fine. Insisting on it being a valid fact based theory is not what the writers intended. Doing so misses the point of the story.

How do you know Genesis was written to give the simple an understandable, but untrue, creation story? Was Christ ignorant of this fact? Why did He appeal to it as history to establish His teaching on marriage and divorce?

As to the people who propagate this view? their agenda is money, power and influence.

That can be true of any who propagate anything. But those who seek to disseminate truth would also take the same course, so your judgement may be more from prejudice than observation.

******************************************************************
Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

wolfsbane

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Hey look - I've found just as good a fit for the passage.

Have you seen a rhino's tail? Have you seen a cedar? Or maybe you think the passage referred to a sapling cedar???

*****************************************************************************
Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Cossax

wolfsbane wrote: »

tommy2bad said:

Not at all. The historic position of the Church has been to accept Genesis as normal history. That was abandoned relatively recently, but re-affirmed subsequently as believers returned to a Scripture-as-final-authority position.

I was/am under the impression that the RCC accepts evolution and doesn't take Genesis literally.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Most creationists would not be comfortable with evolution being factual and creation not. Creationism holds to the factuality of the Genesis creation account, that is is not a myth, literary framework, parable or anything but historical narrative.

There are 2 differing account of creation in Genesis, are there not?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, the religious content of creationism is simple and straight-forward. But it has a scientific aspect too, and it is presented by highly qualified scientists who have the special knowledge to understand the science.

No, that's a flat out lie. There is no scientific aspect to creationism. There is no scientific evidence put forward by highly qualified scientists that Creationism is real. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool or a liar.

wolfsbane

Monty Burnz said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Apparently not:
The movement and habitat utilization patterns of an elephant population were studied in southern India during 1981–83 within a 1,130 km2 (440 sq mi) study area. The area encompasses a diversity of vegetation types — from dry thorn forest at 250 to 400 m (820 to 1,300 ft) of altitude through deciduous forest (400 to 1,400 m (1,300 to 4,600 ft)) to stunted evergreen shola forest and grassland (1,400 to 1,800 m (4,600 to 5,900 ft)). Five different elephant clans, each consisting of between 50 and 200 individuals had home ranges of between 105 km2 (41 sq mi) and 320 km2 (120 sq mi), which overlapped. Seasonal habitat preferences were related to the availability of water and the palatability of food plants. During the dry months of January to April, elephants congregated at high densities of up to five individuals per km2 in river valleys where browse plants had a much higher protein content than the coarse tall grasses on hill slopes. With the onset of rains in May, they dispersed over a wider area at lower densities, largely into the tall grass forests, to feed on the fresh grasses, which then had a high protein value. During the second wet season from September to December, when the tall grasses became fibrous, they moved into lower elevation short grass open forests. The normal movement pattern could be upset during years of adverse environmental conditions. However, the movement pattern of elephants in this region has not basically changed for over a century, as inferred from descriptions recorded during the 19th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Elephant
Hang on a second - this is talking about migration over months! You are claiming that giant dinosaurs would travel up mountains daily to graze!

I never said daily. I said ranging. You said they couldn't. The article says they could.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not so:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...huge-distances
Of course they ranged over huge distances - like bisons etc. do. Huge distances over flat lands! Not up and down mountains daily! This is ludicrous.

As above. And not necessarily flat-lands. Smaller mountains that can be accessed on a grade, for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The translation has little to go on. Shade is the only certainty.
Vague, isn't it? So what kind of tree can a 30 foot high dinosaur walk under? And what kind of tree can a 30 metre long dinosaur fit under for shade? And why did the dinosaur need shade when he could have stayed up in the mountain he just came down from if he was too warm?

1. Any tree whose lower branches allow a 30 metre beast to be under it. Trees like the cedar in Lebanon have exceeded that.

2. It seems not to have been confined to the mountain, but lived in the river/ river valley also: In a covert of reeds and marsh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You don't know what sort of dinosaur the behemoth was. Nor do you know that many dinosaurs only ate leaves. The literature I ref'ed suggests otherwise.
Behemoth doesn't sound like a dinosaur at all.

It does to me.

It sounds like a generic large beast like a rhino or elephant.

With a cedar-like tail?

You admit that it is vague when you think it suits your case,

Only because the word used is vague.

but think that stuff like 'moves its tail like a cedar' is very specifically referring to one possible interpretation when it could refer to several, and claim that things like having strong bones mean it's definitely a dinosaur...a little bit inconsistent in my opinion.

If you can suggest other meanings for moves its tail like a cedar, I'll be glad to hear them.

I did not say strong bones must make it a dinosaur. That could describe the rhino and elephant. But the rest of the description rules those two out.

It's almost like you are desperate to interpret this passage as referring to dinosaurs...like you started with your mind made up...

But I'm not concerned to prove it was a dinosaur, just to show that it fits well. It could have been a rhino with a massive tail - but I doubt it.

Whether or not this referred to a dino, I'm perfectly sure dinos were created with the rest of the biosphere in the 6 days of Genesis 1, some several thousands of years ago.

********************************************************************
Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

wolfsbane

Cossax said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not at all. The historic position of the Church has been to accept Genesis as normal history. That was abandoned relatively recently, but re-affirmed subsequently as believers returned to a Scripture-as-final-authority position.
I was/am under the impression that the RCC accepts evolution and doesn't take Genesis literally.

Yes, it now accepts evolution - of a sort. It insists Adam & Eve are real and I assume it holds to much of the Genesis account subsequent to them. So no humans descended from other than that one pair - hardly in line with the evolutionary scenario, as far as I understand it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Most creationists would not be comfortable with evolution being factual and creation not. Creationism holds to the factuality of the Genesis creation account, that is is not a myth, literary framework, parable or anything but historical narrative.
There are 2 differing account of creation in Genesis, are there not?

No, one is an expansion of the other. Two accounts, but complimentary rather than contradictory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, the religious content of creationism is simple and straight-forward. But it has a scientific aspect too, and it is presented by highly qualified scientists who have the special knowledge to understand the science.
No, that's a flat out lie. There is no scientific aspect to creationism. There is no scientific evidence put forward by highly qualified scientists that Creationism is real. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool or a liar.

I suppose you can say that with a clear conscience - if you presuppose that anything raised against evolution is ipso facto non-scientific.

But the fact remains that well-qualified scientists research and publish lots of scientific articles that show evolution is suspect and that creationism is at least an alternative theory. For example, check this journal:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj

********************************************************************
Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Cossax

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, it now accepts evolution - of a sort. It insists Adam & Eve are real and I assume it holds to much of the Genesis account subsequent to them. So no humans descended from other than that one pair - hardly in line with the evolutionary scenario, as far as I understand it.

No, one is an expansion of the other. Two accounts, but complimentary rather than contradictory.

One says humans were made last, the other says man was made before all the other animals. Doesn't sound very complimentary to me.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I suppose you can say that with a clear conscience - if you presuppose that anything raised against evolution is ipso facto non-scientific.

But the fact remains that well-qualified scientists research and publish lots of scientific articles that show evolution is suspect and that creationism is at least an alternative theory. For example, check this journal:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj

There's nothing very scientific about it.

Festus

dlofnep wrote: »

You love your family, because it is the result of evolution.. A strong-knit family that looked out for each other on the plains of Africa had a better chance at survival. The beauty in nature is something everyone can appreciate - atheist or theist. I don't find it to be a challenging question that only faith could explain. I like nature, because I am an intelligent being, capable of subjective likes and dislikes.

Some people like shooting foxes (many whom are Christian), I like the beauty in a living fox. Life is what we make it - there is no ultimate meaning..

I thought foxes were like most other animals - atheist? Well, you live and learn. I guess I'll have to stop shooting foxes now and start giving them a better chance. Perhaps I'll start chasing them on horseback with a few beagles.

Speaking of evilotion, opps, evolution, why is it that humans do not behave like animals? Why look after the sick and injured?

HamletOrHecuba

Cossax wrote: »

I was/am under the impression that the RCC accepts evolution and doesn't take Genesis literally.

At the very least to be a faithful Roman Catholic you have to believe in the special creation of a historical Adam and Eve. The RCC takes Genesis according to the Patristic consensus which is far closer to taking it literally than it is to ideas of evolution, infact its extremely close to taking it literally.

How can you believe in evolution and be a Christian? Evolution makes God and not man responsible for the distance between them, which turns what Christ endured on the Cross into unimaginable sadism.

Festus

dlofnep wrote: »

Science can also answer that question. I don't see how faith could ever answer such a question. We know that homo sapiens being here is the result of eons of evolution. We know the earth is here as a direct result of the effect gravity has on dust and gas. As for the 'meaning' of life - Life is what you make it.

Does science tell us how life started? I know it explains evolution, mostly at a micro level and within species, but that assumes life has already begun. Is there any scientific experiment that can show exactly how life began? We have the technology, don't we?

Do we know what caused the Big Bang? We know it happened, or something like it because we are here questioning where we came from, but what caused it? Can science ever answer that?

dlofnep

Festus wrote: »

Speaking of evilotion, opps, evolution, why is it that humans do not behave like animals? Why look after the sick and injured?

Because humans possess the highest intellect of all animals. It's that simple really, no mystery to it. The evolution of society is well studied. We behave worse than animals in many cases. I don't remember a Fox dropping an atomic bomb on 100,000's of other foxes.

Monty Burnz

wolfsbane wrote: »

Have you seen a rhino's tail? Have you seen a cedar? Or maybe you think the passage referred to a sapling cedar???

Have you ever seen a cedar move? Nor have I. The leaves and twigs move in the wind. Occasionally, in a very strong wind, a branch might move.

Do you have any reason to think that the passage refers to the whole tree? A tree that does not move?

dlofnep

Festus wrote: »

Does science tell us how life started?

Nope, and it doesn't have to. Even if it never did it still wouldn't allow you to say that it was 'created'. There have been many experiments, including the Miller-Urey experiment which demonstrate how amino acids can form from early global atmospheric conditions.

Festus wrote: »

I know it explains evolution, mostly at a micro level and within species, but that assumes life has already begun.

No, you're wrong. The theory of Evolution explains Evolution from early primitive species, right up to modern species we see today. None of this 'micro' evolution nonsense, which is nothing more than a buzz-word from Creationists. Evolution is a demonstrable fact. It's not up for question.

Festus wrote: »

Is there any scientific experiment that can show exactly how life began? We have the technology, don't we?

No - because it took hundreds of millions of years of varying conditions before any form of primitive microbial life came about. Such conditions and time-frames would be simply impossible to replicate in a lab. What we can do, is perform the kinds of experiments like the Miller-Urey experiment, and demonstrate that organic compounds can be formed from varying conditions.

Festus wrote: »

Do we know what caused the Big Bang? We know it happened, or something like it because we are here questioning where we came from, but what caused it? Can science ever answer that?

I'm not a physics major - It is assumed that it is the result of an unstable singularity. It could be that it's actually not a rare occurrence, and there may be billions of universes (See the multiverse theory). Who knows? It's something that scientists are working on, and gradually building up knowledge on. That's how science works.

It's ok to be humble and admit that we don't know for certain the exact details - but what it's not ok to do is the state that some Deity created it, without a shred of evidence to back it up.

lmaopml

Cossax wrote: »

One says humans were made last, the other says man was made before all the other animals. Doesn't sound very complimentary to me.

Hi Cossax, as a Roman Catholic we would be pretty free to believe in evolution in a theistic sense, which insists on the special creation of the 'soul' by God whether mans body developed from previous biological forms is perfectly fine to believe, we would also believe that God created the universe out of nothing - concerning the time they took to develop is not important, but understanding that nothing exists without God is iykwim.

The Church doesn't have any specific teaching in relation to evolution in the 'scientific' sense, and neither should she imo, we live and learn - other than one is not free to understand it in the atheistic sense, which would exclude God.

Hope that helps.

Festus

dlofnep wrote: »

Because humans possess the highest intellect of all animals. It's that simple really, no mystery to it. The evolution of society is well studied. We behave worse than animals in many cases. I don't remember a Fox dropping an atomic bomb on 100,000's of other foxes.

Wait until foxes have opposable thumbs and a higher intellect.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question. Why do we look after the sick and injured?

Festus

dlofnep wrote: »

Nope, and it doesn't have to. Even if it never did it still wouldn't allow you to say that it was 'created'. There have been many experiments, including the Miller-Urey experiment which demonstrate how amino acids can form from early global atmospheric conditions.

Either science answers questions or it doesn't. SO, how did life begin. The forming of amino acids is one thing. Getting them to form DNA in a suitable receptacle is quite another. Do you have an answer?

dlofnep wrote: »

No, you're wrong. The theory of Evolution explains Evolution from early primitive species, right up to modern species we see today. None of this 'micro' evolution nonsense, which is nothing more than a buzz-word from Creationists. Evolution is a demonstrable fact. It's not up for question.

Evolution is an incomplete theory and as in anything in science it is always up for question. Science never stops questioning because it never has all the answers. Within species evolution and development is one thing, the rise of genera is another and not fully explained.
That genetic mutations occur is explained. That some genetic mutations can lead to improved lives is explained, as are the benefits of survival of the fitess (humans excluded).
But to get to genetic mutation you have to explain how DNA came about in the first place. Amino acids, fine, DNA, no answer yet.

dlofnep wrote: »

No - because it took hundreds of millions of years of varying conditions before any form of primitive microbial life came about. Such conditions and time-frames would be simply impossible to replicate in a lab. What we can do, is perform the kinds of experiments like the Miller-Urey experiment, and demonstrate that organic compounds can be formed from varying conditions.

From organic compounds to living, moving, reproducing creatures - explain please?

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm not a physics major - It is assumed that it is the result of an unstable singularity. It could be that it's actually not a rare occurrence, and there may be billions of universes (See the multiverse theory). Who knows? It's something that scientists are working on, and gradually building up knowledge on. That's how science works.

If science, acording to you, doesn't have to say how life began, then why study cosmology? Does science not have to explain why the big bang happend and what caused it?

Again, you have no answer other than someone is working on it.
Tell me, when do you think science will have an answer to what caused the Big bang and why?

dlofnep wrote: »

It's ok to be humble and admit that we don't know for certain the exact details - but what it's not ok to do is the state that some Deity created it, without a shred of evidence to back it up.

So you don't agree with religious freedom then. Why is that not a surprise.

tommy2bad

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

At the very least to be a faithful Roman Catholic you have to believe in the special creation of a historical Adam and Eve.
News to me!
The RCC takes Genesis according to the Patristic consensus which is far closer to taking it literally than it is to ideas of evolution, infact its extremely close to taking it literally.
Er.. No it dosn't
How can you believe in evolution and be a Christian? Evolution makes God and not man responsible for the distance between them, which turns what Christ endured on the Cross into unimaginable sadism.

How can you not believe in evolution? The evidence is their, their is no evidence for creationism as described in the bible.
What? God caused the fall if evolution is true? You don't get Genesis do you?

HamletOrHecuba

tommy2bad wrote: »

How can you not believe in evolution? The evidence is their, their is no evidence for creationism as described in the bible.
What? God caused the fall if evolution is true? You don't get Genesis do you?

Its in Pope Pius the 12 th's encycial on the matter- I will dig it up in the morning dont feel like doing it now- if you dont believe in a special creation of and very much historical Adam from whom all human nature flows from than Baptism doesnt make much sense does it? Read the Oath Against Modernism and St Pius the 10 th's encycial on modernism. Roman Catholics are not free to mess around with how they interput the Bible.

I have no interest in science but there are good scientific critiques of what is after all a theory and not proven fact whatever we have been brought up to believe.

We are born into a fallen state, even after Baptism and Eucharist we struggle, we await the final redemption of our nature and the restoration of the cosmos that Adam took with him when he fell as St Paul so clearly states- are you saying that God is to blame for the state of the world and human nature as we find? Are you going to say that God is responsible for death?