What's Wrong With Palin?

on Oct 07, 2008

Leauki posts #135

Your attempt to make the conflict between scientific and stupid a conflict between atheism and religion is yet another Creationist lie.

It's no a Creationist lie.

If you'll pay close attention to my post # 162 you'll see that it's actually the Evolutionist followers of Darwin who first identified atheism with Darwinian Evolution and Evolutionary theory. It's their own words.

LEAUKI POSTS: #143

But it's unimportant because Darwinism doesn't claim to explain the origins of life, only the origins of species (i.e. why life consists of many different species).

There is no scientific theory that I know of that tries to explains the origins of life and what hypotheses there are are not _theories_ and cannot be demonstrated or verified in labs.

#144

Evolution and darwinism make no statements about the origin of the universe or life.

Daiwa posts #146

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with and makes no claims about how life originated, only how it evolved. Another dodge - continuing to talk about apples and oranges as if they were the same thing does not make them so.

KFC POSTS: #147

to some extent you're right but it does come into play because there are those evolutionists believing in what they believe do try to throw origins in the mix like I quoted Sagan and Darwin above. You can't have one without the other.

Yes, KFC, of course the evolutionists followers threw our origins in the mix....we have it in their own words what they thought and what they taught....

KFC POSTS:

Daiwa

Darwin didn't write a book titled "On the Evolution of Man" but one titled " On the ORIGIN of species," Darwinian evolution technically does not explain the origin of life. It begins after the formation of the first living cell. Darwin intentionally remained publicly silent on this subject.

Absolutely true. Again, Darwin's followers pick Darwin's ball and run with it....they further develop his initial theory...

Again, my post # 162 addresses this. Darwin's true blue evolutionist followers tried to explain how life came from non-life.

According to an Evolutionist by the name of Bur quoted in Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity 1972, pg. 98,

The formula for the evolutionary origin and development of life goes something like this:

Nothing, plus time plus chance equals simple cell and one cell plus time plus chance equals man. The randomness caught on the wing, preserved, reproduced...and thus converted into order, rule, necessity. A totally blind process can lead to anything; it can even lead to vision itself."

According to the Evolution, the origin of life by random means began some 5 billion years ago and gradually unfolded through a series of 5 stages....

Stage 1... In contrast to the present oxidizing atmosphere of earth, Evolutionists imagine that the atmosphere of the early earth was a rdeucing one made up mostly of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vaper.

Stage 2....which was the formation of small organic molecules such as sugars, amino acids and nucleotiides came about becasue of ultraviolet light, electric discharge and high energy particle bambardment of molecules in a reducing atmosphere.

Stage 3...billions of years later, it's imagined that combinations of stage 2 molecules resulted in the formation of larger polymers such as starches, proteins, and nucleic acids (DNA).

Stage 4... These large molecules supposedly joined together into a gel-like glob call ed coacervates or microspheres which developed into new stucutres called protocells,

Stage 5... Evolutionists believe that finally, at least one of these globs absorbed the right molecules so that complex molecules can be duplicated within new units called living cells. These first cells comsumed molecules left over from earlier states but eventually photosynthesis appeared in cells, in some way and oxygen was released into the atmosphere. As the 5 of oxygen increased, most of the known forms of life on the earth today began to appear. Becasue of the presence of oxygen these early forms destroyed all the molecules from earlier stages and no more chemical evolution was possible.

Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British mathematician and astronomer, developed a team who mathematically determined that the liklihood that a single cell could originate in a primitive environment given 4.6 billion years in which to do it, was one chance in 10 to the 40000 power ...that is one chance in 1 with 40 thousand zeros after it. On top of that everything would suddenly have to be there all at once, it would have to work perfectly and it would have to split and divide into new cells immediately and reproduce offspring quickly. Of course, it would have to be alive.

Living forms even the most simple cells are too awesome to relagate to the tender mercies of time and chance. It took God's special Creation and special power to make all things, including the incredible complexity of DNA and the impossibility of making itself out of chance, gravel, mud and water.

167

lulapilgrim

on Oct 07, 2008

Exactly, but just because it hits on Google doesn't make it any more credible than a science project by a first grader. Google is not an Encyclopedia, nor is it even a tool for hard, discrete research. The search follows Boolean Logic; it's not 'truth powered.' Did you read that 'about us' section derived from that site that I posted? Basically, they state that they use the internet to get their facts and research, and they're, according to the parent site, "allaboutGOD." That sounds a little fishy to me when coming down entirely on the work of Charles Darwin and any scientific discoveries into evolution since. Apparently, and this has been discussed in public schools and universities across the country, we've come to an age where people find something on the internet and deduce that it must be true. Then of course, the cycle proceeds as people like you go and post others' nonsense as evidence for your claims. It's the 'Trickle-Down Theory' of misinformation.

C'mon, c'mon Kurtin, now that you've analyzed, ciritiized and put down the link, it's time for you to go back to my post 159 and refute the first paragraph which is a definition of Darwin's theory of Evolutiolion (which again is basically the same as is in my kid's science and biology textbooks.)

Okay..... So how would each of you describe the process commonly called EVOLUTION and DARWIN'S EVOLUTION THEORY as opposed to Google's definition which follows below?

168

kurtin

on Oct 07, 2008

Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British mathematician and astronomer, developed a team who mathematically determined that the liklihood that a single cell could originate in a primitive environment given 4.6 billion years in which to do it, was one chance in 10 to the 40000 power ...that is one chance in 1 with 40 thousand zeros after it. On top of that everything would suddenly have to be there all at once, it would have to work perfectly and it would have to split and divide into new cells immediately and reproduce offspring quickly. Of course, it would have to be alive.

Mathematics is kinda my thing. While his math is more than likely correct on the inferences he made, one should question whether or not they were properly made. Take a look at Ian Musgrave's interpretation of why Hoyle should be considered wrong with his interpretations. Do you see how we could dance around this all day?

Once again, allow me to emphasize, IT IS NOT GOOGLE'S DEFINITION! Get that through your head.

169

lulapilgrim

on Oct 07, 2008

leauki posts" 135

I know about evolution and understand it, and I believe in G-d and prophecy; plus I happen to invest a lot of time into studying religion, certainly more than most Creationists.

It's good to know that you believe in God and prophecy.

Much has been said in this discussion about there being apes evolving into ape-like pre-human or proto-humans that evolved into modern man. They would have had to die out leading up to the arrival of Adam, but Romans 5:12 declares that death only began to occur AFTER Adam's sin of disobedience. So when is a human a human being? The 1994 Catechism of the CC states that we are human beings precisesly becasue we are animated by a spritual soul/ The idea of these multitudes of ape-like pre-humans does not even qualify as credible speculation. The first male human being on whom the awesome choice of obedience would be placed on behalf of all future mankind, is much more likely to have been specially created as an adult human being. If one holds that this reference to death applies only to human beings, then why do fossils of supposed ape-like transitional forms (Neanderthals) show evidence of the disease of rickets? Are we to believe that Adam and Eve were created upon a vast museum of death and that it was not a good tranquil Creation after all? The buried fossils of the Neanderthals in reality resulted from the global Flood of Noah many years AFTER Adam and Eve.

Do you believe Christ is the prophecied Messias and therefore God? It would seem that you don't.

The Old Testament including those 5 Books in the Torah are full of prophecy of the coming of the Messias Christ. But for now, let's get back to Genesis. Consider some things we know about the trustworthy Creator. Genesis tells us the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity was not only the present at the Creation, but actually carried out the work of Creation...."through whom all things were made." He later took on a human form and carried out the work of redemption in perfect obedience to the Father. He must have been intimately involved in the truth revealed to Moses (who Prophecied His coming and told the Jews to "hear Him"). God can neither deceive nor be decieved, so how can we ignore Christ's various comments regarding the genuine historicity of Genesis, including the global Flood and the concrete reality of Adam and Eve.

Let's not forget that the Second Person did some extraordinary things by human standards such as calmly walking across the rough sea to St.Peter and the other frightened disciples in the boat. We know that He created space, time and matter rapidly at the beginning of Creation, changed water into wine rapidly, brought the dead Lazarus back to life rapidly, created a coin inside the mouth of a fish rapidly, or at least directed St.Peter to a fish that had a coin in its mouth, multiplied 5 loaves and 2 fises rapidly to feed 5, 000 people. He cured blindness and diseases rapidly, so why balk at His rapid creation of Adam and Eve?

When I consider all of this it's easy for me to believe in the truth of Creation as told in Genesis. So whom should we believe--the trustworthy Divine Second Person who was present at the Creation, or fallible modern human beings such as Darwin, and his followers who were not there?

170

lulapilgrim

on Oct 07, 2008

Once again, allow me to emphasize, IT IS NOT GOOGLE'S DEFINITION! Get that through your head.

Oh google, snoogle, yahoo, bahoo.....so what? It's a current working definition and one that school textbooks use.

After being accused of not knowing or understanding Evolution or Darwin's ET, I provided a rebuttal in post 159...

I anticipated that you might refuse that definition and asked

Okay..... So how would each of you describe the process commonly called EVOLUTION and DARWIN'S EVOLUTION THEORY as opposed to Google's definition which follows below?

Defend your position, Kurtin....describe the process....how does your definition of Evolution and ET work?

It's not natural selection, it's not intermediate transitional forms, it's not mutations, ....c'mon, smarty pants, what is it?

171

lulapilgrim

on Oct 07, 2008

Leauki posts: #135

The surprising thing about Lula is that she claims to be Catholic and a follower of the one true Church, yet she dismisses Catholic principles and the Pope's views on evolution (and interpretation of Biblical texts).

Here's the Catholic Church position on evolution:

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

(Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II)

And about creation:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

You bet I am Catholic and a follower of the one true faith of the Catholic Church ....the CC has never been silent in declarations in encyclicals and Councils about Creation and evolution. I certainly haven't dismissed the ones you mention.

Within a few years that Darwin had written his books and Godless evolution theory started being bandied about by his followers, Pope Leo XIII was concerned that Catholics might fall into this Satan's trap. In 1880, he issued his encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae which infallibly taught us Catholics that Adam was made from the slime of the earth and that Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam's body. The four conditions which the Vat. II council would later recognize in Lumen Gentium #25, in order for a doctrine to be proposed infallibly by the ordinary Magisterium had been fulfilled in 1880 with respect to the origin of Adam and Eve. Catholics knew then from this teaching as Catholics know now that Pope Leo XIII implicitly ruled out polygenism i.e. many first parents by insisting on monogenism.

Polygenism was also strongly condemned by Pius XII in Humani Generis. He declared that Catholics "cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents." Therefore polygenism is not an open question for Catholics.

Do you know what the full title of Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis is? It's "Humani Generis on Evolution and Other Modern Errors." I've got a copy of it in front of me. He wrote it because he saw the shootout was coming between tratitional Catholic teaching and modern thought with its assortment of false philosophical ideas and opinions, dogmatic relativism, denial of Original Sin and the difference between matter and spirit, false ecumenism, and the fad of Evolution as well as a host of others I won't bore you and other readers with.

Concerning

Here's the Catholic Church position on evolution:

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

(Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II)

Ya, the news headlines that followed his address (not infallible teaching btw) was "Pope endorses evolution!" It, of course, is not true as Pope John Paul II's, of happy memory , words were totally taken out of context. (Perhaps it's not surprising given the liberal bias of the media and their total inability to unpack his statement. They latched on to his most sensational phrase and didn't understand it.

The name of his address is "Truth cannot Contradict Truth" and it addresses the relationship between science and revelation. Pope John Paul reminds the members of the Academy of Humani generis's restrictions and THEN NOTES the now famous phrase... some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis....

This is so far from an endorsement of evolution, rather merely a statement of fact....Evolution has gained general recognition....and the two sentences that follow amplify this statement.....he refers to evolution as more than a hypothesis and as a "theory". Scientists understand the words have different meanings. I think we've dissussed the differences here on JU.

The Pope then calls the nature of theory to our attention. a....theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreteated in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified...wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitablilty. It must be then rethought."

He further notes that we should really speak of "several.theories of evolution" becasue of the different proposed mechanisms and underlying philosophies. "He said, "What is to be decided here, is the true role of philosophy, and beyond it, of theology." Here the Pope reached his main theme....Man was created in the image and likeness of God and can't be reduced to pure means or insturments. He then moves on to repeats Pius's insistence that the man's body is living matter and his soul is immediately created by God. He then states: "Consequently, theories of evolution which ....consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person."

As to your second quote on Creation, I have no clue about that....you'd have to give me more specifics.

172

Leauki

on Oct 07, 2008

Do you know what the full title of Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis is? It's "Humani Generis on Evolution and Other Modern Errors." I've got a copy of it in front of me.

I don't know where you got your copy from, but that's not the full title.

The full title is

HUMANI GENERIS
(Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine)

http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12human.htm

The "false opinions" referred to are not the theory of evolution but its application to human souls. Darwinists do not make claims about evolution of souls.

It looks to me like you got your copy from a place that changed the title to make it look as if the treatise spoke up against evolution.

173

Leauki

on Oct 07, 2008

Okay..... So how would each of you describe the process commonly called EVOLUTION and DARWIN'S EVOLUTION THEORY as opposed to Google's definition which follows below?

What do you mean "as opposed to Google's definition"?

This is (paraphrased) Richard Dawkins definition of evolution:

"Evolution is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."

Note that evolution is

(I) non-random (the randomness is removed when natural selection discards random variations that are not needed)

(II) based on replicators (and no distinction is made between small and big variations)

(III) not about the origin of life (hence "survival" rather than "creation")

Evolution is as non-random as a sieve, meaning that even though the you can put randomly-sized pebbles into a sieve, the pebbles that are allowed to pass through the sieve are NOT determined by chance (but by their size).

Evolution doesn't know different types of changes, only change as such, meaning that the replicators change or don't change, but there is no limit as to how much they can change over generations. Any statements about "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" have nothing to do with evolution, as there is no such difference according to the theory.

Evolution doesn't address the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

174

Leauki

on Oct 07, 2008

"Pope endorses evolution!"

And he was. Which is why Cardinal Ratzinger made statements further explaining the Catholic Church's position on evolution, and which is why evolution is taught in Catholic schools.

175

taltamir

on Oct 07, 2008

You notice that creationists keep on going about "drawinism" this and "darwin" that... as if they think evolution means treating darwin as jesus or something.

Darwin might have been the first to put it down to paper, but most of his work has been revised or modified by proceeding scientists. Evolution as it is today is beyond what darwin could have imagined.

176

Daiwa

on Oct 07, 2008

Wants to teach creationism alongside evolution in public schools
Teach intelligent design in public schools

I believe (correct me if you have evidence I'm wrong, please) that she commented, when asked, that she would have no problem with creationism being discussed in schools. I've not seen any evidence that she ever proposed, campaigned for, pushed for or otherwise actively promoted the teaching of creationism or intelligent design as part of the defined school curriculum.

177

Leauki

on Oct 08, 2008

she commented, when asked, that she would have no problem with creationism being discussed in schools.

Yes.

Incidentally, neither have I.

Even Little Green Footballs are satisfied with Palin's stance on the issue. And they are no friends of Creationists.

178

Dr Guy

on Oct 08, 2008

Leauki

reply 2

she commented, when asked, that she would have no problem with creationism being discussed in schools.

Yes.

Incidentally, neither have I.

Even Little Green Footballs are satisfied with Palin's stance on the issue. And they are no friends of Creationists.

Campaigns are not about the truth, but about spin. I have seen a lot of distaste and our right hate for Palin, only because she was percieved to be a threat to Obama. There is almost no reciprocation about Biden because he did nothing for Obama.

179

lulapilgrim

on Oct 15, 2008

LEAUKI POSTS #152

Belief in a Creator creating the universe and life is something that both Creationists and scientists can believe in. And atheism is also something that both supporters of "Intelligent Design" and scientists can believe in.

Yes, I agree.

They are not two positions (atheism and evolution vs theism and Creationism) but four:

1. G-d created the universe and all species (Creationism).

2. G-d created the universe and (possibly) life but species exist because of evolution (Catholicism/Judaism/all rational religions).

3. There is no god or it doesn't matter and some entity created all species (Creationism/"Intelligent Design").

4. There is no god or it doesn't matter and life started somehow but species exist because of evolution (Dawkins).

#1 and #4 ......AGREE.

#2 and #3 ....Disagree....Catholicism teaches that God created the universe and all that's in it including man according to Genesis...."In the beginning.." 1:1. Genesis contains sublime, moral and religious truths regarding creation, while it is not scientific per se, it is in accordance with science. So far, since the Church has left open the question of age of the world, faithful Catholics can believe that it took billions of years or in the literal days of Creation.

As far as evolution, Catholics are free to accept it as a working hypothesis ....understanding it is not a proved fact despite the assertions of many pseudo-scientists. It is not and can not be an experimental science and suggests more problems than it solves.

180

kwm1800

on Oct 16, 2008

This thread is for Palin, but why do I see evolution debate here?