Pope: Creation vs. evolution clash an ‘absurdity’

MSNBC ^ | 7/24/2007

[edcoil]

How about something so simple as to live in hot weather vs cold.

[scarface367]

2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Macro-Evolution breaks that law

For the love of God, when will people quit repeating this same falsehood? It takes less than 5 seconds worth of knowledge to realize that it's wrong.

[ScottfromNJ]

“The major problem with that article is that it is taken from the King James Bible.”

Actually, the article is correcting the King James version and properly defining a particular word.

[RFC_Gal]

Please read http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

[Natural Law]

What was the actual word used in ancient Hebrew that you are referring to as a day and what was the script it was originally written in? Did any changes in meaning, context, occur as the spoken Hebrew language evolved from Ancient Hebrew to the time the Torah was frst written? How did the differences in written language affect the fidelity of the text as it evolved from it Proto-Canaanite, to Phoenecian, to Proto-Hebrew, Samariatan, to Classical Hebrew, to Rashi-style Hebrew to modern Hebrew?

The Meaning and cultural context of language is very important in understanding the message. Linguists and anthropologists recognize the importance of language to a culture or people. One theory in understanding the connection of language to culture is to consider language a reflection of reality. Two early linguists, Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Whorf, theorized that language determines culture. According to their theory, known as the "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis," members of different cultures see the world differently because they draw upon different linguistic categories to interpret it. As language is constantly evolving so does the culture and the meanings assigned to not only words, but values as well. One need look no further than the modern interpretation of the Constitution as compared with original intent. If you think you can do a literalistic reading of the bible in a single modern language you and know what the original message was, you are nuts.

[Coyoteman]

This is what happens when you accept anything less than the inerrancy, infallibility, plenary inspiration, and authority of Scripture alone.

And if you believe in the "inerrancy, infallibility, plenary inspiration, and authority of Scripture alone" how do you explain the lack of scientific evidence for a global flood about 4350 years ago?

Even the early creationist geologists seeking to prove a global flood gave up about 1830!

[firebrand]

the structures in bodies seem too complex to be randomly generated, they require tens of inter-related structures to operate at all and all would have to develop at once to have a positive impact on survival.

This favorite argument against evolution shows a lack of imagination. Evolution can go backward as well as forward, in the sense that parts that are simple and no longer functional can be lost, within a complex structure--like the eye, which is usually given as an example. E.g., an elementary cell that registers light and dark only would be lost when a more complicated cell evolves.

Also the amount of time involved is usually beyond our imagining. We don't know how many millions of years the eye remained simply a light-sensitive mechanism, before some kind of advantageous differentiation occurred.

Also, we don't know how it happened. Try to explain to someone from another planet how a loom works. You can't unless you happen to have learned it or someone shows you. It's an ingenious invention, not obvious. The same is true of natural processes that we don't understand. Remember DNA. Didn't the image of the helix come to Watson in a dream?

I agree with Augustine, by the way. Infinitely more impressive to have made up the rules by which everything operates, than to just, say, toss a horse into the Garden of Eden. Although both are possible, one looks like a magic trick whereas the other creates order, the very foundation of our being, without which we would have no boundaries, no reason, no sanity.

[presently no screen name]

How weak are you? You call that surviving?

[Coyoteman]

They think the Bible is a science text, just like the Evolutionary radicals think Darwin is a religious prophet.

Absolutely false.

I studied evolution for six years in grad school. There was no mention of Darwin being a "religious prophet" in any of my classes. (And nobody passed a collection plate! That's proof positive!)

Rather, Darwin was considered an early thinker and theorist whose works had been expanded upon by over a century of other scientists' contributions. (Much like Newton's and Galileo's works have been ...)

[csense]

Did you not see the definition I posted? If you have something to refute that, then, by all means, post it.

[Dinsdale]

I curious, can you define the second law of thermodynamics. I know it dos not say what you think it says.

Hint, there is a thing in the sky that supplies energy to earth.

I know, I know, my time would be better spent arguing with a brick.

[part deux]

Bible: World created as is in six literal days. (Genesis 1)

Evolution: World evolved over billions of years.

My bible like yours says God created the world in six days, however it is unclear as to whether God had created 'time' as we know it today on a 24 hour clock rotation. Sure there was day and night, yet we are still assuming a 24 day if we decide it is in a literal sense.

I am just as content to know God made the world in 144 hours, or put creation in motion over six time periods. Either way, it doesn't change the wonder of creation. It's not so much exactly how God made the world, but that God is the Creator.

Maybe the new testament genesis will help. John 1:1 - 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Either way, God is the author of all substance of Creation. That we can agree with. Evolutionists tend to be atheist and deny God as the source...their loss.

[Coyoteman]

The “missing links” are still missing...

Wrong. "Missing links" is a newspaper term, not a scientific term.

Scientists prefer "transitional" -- a term which describes an organism which is between two others. That's pretty simple, eh? Doesn't have to be exactly half way between two others, just somewhere in between. There are a lot of transitions, both in our own ancestry and in other critters' ancestries.

This is an example of a transitional in our own ancestry. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the right center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source

[Coyoteman]

Darwinists will claim that all life evolved through natural selection from single celled organisms, but not be able to show a gradual transition of any creature into a wholly different one. Something big is missing in the theory, imo.

Perhaps the missing pieces are your understanding of the theory and your denial of the scientific evidence?

[Coyoteman]

But micro-evolution, in which existing creatures undergo Darwinian pressures and the fittest survive and pass on their genes and characteristics. How one justifies macro-evolution, wherein new body parts like wings or eyes spontaneously spring into existence - fully functional, with the appropriate neural wiring - I don't know and cannot accept.

Perhaps you should study what the theory of evolution actually says.

With comments like the one above, you are just looking foolish.

[Weeedley]

You need no references to vindicate what everybody knows...but here goes:

There is a variety of sources for knowledge of Sacred Tradition, taught by the Church to be originally passed from the apostles in the form of oral tradition. Many of the writings of the early Church Fathers reflect teachings of Sacred Tradition, such as apostolic succession.

source: wikopedia

[Weeedley]

You need to see things through God’s perspective; to Him the earth is just a rock and a puny one at that.

[Weeedley]

For Bible believers, its all a heresy. Earth worship is blasphemy since we are to worship God, not one of his many creations.

That makes as much sense as the pagan ancient Egyptians who worshiped the sun.

[Coyoteman]

2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Macro-Evolution breaks that law. Macro-Evolution is a fantasy for atheists. It’s laughable that deniers have Macro-Evolution as a cornerstone of their belief system. Their best shot comes up empty.

And this is the typical creationist answer, based on creationist websites that are lying to you.

If you study rudimentary science, you will find that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to the earth because the earth is not a closed system.

THE EARTH GETS ENERGY FROM THE SUN! (Duh!)

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

[Ancesthntr]

My point is that the Theory of Evolution has a lot of holes in it. Don’t believe me - read “Genesis and the Big Bang” by astrophysicist Gerald Shroeder. His analysis of the probability of certain events key to the Theory is devastating.

Also, check out my post #106, where I’ve got a link to an article by Shroeder on the age of the Universe, and it being part and parcel of Jewish Theology.