skyone:

@imohep

Honeslty i wasn't interested in evolution until our arguements with Therationa when i read and finally concluded that evolution is completely fictional and has no fact or evidence whatsoever.
It's completely misleading to the likes of Therationa and others and i just shake my head in their deep ignorance they have ended up.

Its a shame.

therationa:

"the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

imhotep:

I stumbled upon a criticism of the theory of evolution. I have listed some of the salient points of the document below. I do hope the evolutionists on this forum will think again.

* Evolution is just a theory, not a fact

* Evolution has never been observed

* Past evidence for evolution has been overturned

* Evolution's evidence is unreliable or inconsistent

* Life is too unlikely to arise by chance

* Evolution does not explain certain human behaviors

* Evolution cannot create complex structures

* Evolution cannot create information

* Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics

* Evolution says that humans are animals

* Evolution leads to immorality and social ills

* Evolution leads to atheism

* Atheism can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.



Main Source -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolution

KAG:

Did you actually read the contents of the link? Radical idea: Maybe you should

imhotep:

@KAG
How are you doing?

Yes, I read it. It's quite long. What struck you the most?

KAG:

That anyone could think most of those things are problems with or for the theory of evolution.

imhotep:

anyone = evolutionist OR creationist ?

therationa:

1) Do you know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, in the scientific sense of the words

therationa:

2) Have you ever heard of the end-permian extinction?

therationa:

3) How long ago did dinosaurs become extinct?

imhotep:

Theory -> In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

Hypothesis -> A hypothesis consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena.
No, I have not.
No, I do not. But, however long it may be, it should be PROVABLE and not be begging our faith only in the authority of the scientist.

therationa:


1) Good standard definition then. So in what way does evolution not meet the definition of a theory then? Have you heard of the following theories;

The Theory of gravitation
The Germ theory of disease
The Theory of relativity
The tectonic plate theory

Evolution meets the criteria of theory just as much as the above theories. One of its strengths is it power to predict what organism exist in a given line of lineage. Ancestors to whales have recently been discovered based on its predictive strength.

imhotep:

The millions-of-years explanation sounds to me like a convenient excuse for not showing any proof of evolution.

@therationa
- Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes?
- Have you ever touched an evolving organism with your own hands, as it evolved?

If your answer to both questions is 'No', can we not say that you are an adherent of evolution by virtue of faith alone? Has evolution not become some sort of religion for you?

By the way, faith is defined as 'the hypostasis of things not seen'.

therationa:

Your questions show how un-educated you are with the methods of science. No point discussing with you on matters beyond your capabilities, cause it would be like talking to someone from the bronze age. Sorry for the analogy, but there's no other way to proceed.

Am out. Bye

j-girl:

@ imhotep - you have unleashed me today to the fullest. Thank you for this topic.

@ threationa - I have my own questions for you.
1) Do you know the difference between a theory and a law, in the scientific sense of the words.
Gravitation is a law and it's not a theory - that's very different.

2) Have you ever heard of any man's account of extinction?

3) How do you know that dinosaurs became extinct?

To me, I think evolution is seeking to look for an explanation to disprove the essence of creation. I'm a student of evolutionary biology and from 9 - 12 everyday of the week, I'm supposed to believe that there is no God and we all evolved from apes. However, every second of my life - I believe in creation. Even the bible talks of extinction during the great flood that took most of the animals and men away during Noah's time.

j-girl:

A law is more of a fact than a theory.

I have heard of the K-T boundary and I just answered you - I studied it for 3 weeks straight. I have heard of the end-permian extinction.
I just think it all has to do with the flood that God used to wipe out the people. We are confusing this stuff. I mean all of a sudden - particles came together (big bang) and the earth was formed? Seriously?! I find that more ridiculous than even the Yoruba version of the creation of the earth

j-girl:

A law is more of a fact than a theory.

I have heard of the K-T boundary and I just answered you - I studied it for 3 weeks straight. I have heard of the end-permian extinction.
I just think it all has to do with the flood that God used to wipe out the people. We are confusing this stuff. I mean all of a sudden - particles came together (big bang) and the earth was formed? Seriously?! I find that more ridiculous than even the Yoruba version of the creation of the earth

therationa:

Why don't you go learn some more, girl?

KAG:

The formation of the Earth is different from the Big Bang. Matter, amongst other things, do have a tendency to cohere due to gravity. That was a likely cause for the formation of the Earth.

j-girl:

*huffs* Oh no he DIDN"T!!!!! - not to worry. I'll keep that in mind

I think a law is established.

There is a very thin line between theory and laws. Although - a theory is more like a law than a hypothesis.

That was said to be the beginning of the formation of earth forms as well as the earth.

I just think they all sound bogus. I prefer my superior being story

KAG:

What does that mean? I meant that a law is more established than a theory

I tend to think the term "Law" is archaic. It certainly doesn't help that several laws have been shown to be non-universal and, in some cases, superceded by theories. There has to be a difference between theory and law. A law should be stronger than a theory.

I didn't get that - I meant that the big bang is supposed to be how the earth was formed.

they don't preclude belief in a superior being - I know those other stories of creation do not include a superior being. I just prefer my belief in a superior being.

imhotep:

Let me re-post an earlier message ->


@therationa
- Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes?
- Have you ever touched an evolving organism with your own hands, as it evolved?

If your answer to both questions is 'No', can we not say that you are an adherent of evolution by virtue of faith alone? Has evolution not become some sort of religion for you?

By the way, faith is defined as 'the hypostasis of things not seen'.