Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion

[Tempter]

So, in the end if there is indeed a Designer we can ask Him. If there is none then it won't matter we'd all be dust just the same.

That is, if you are still capable of asking after life's end...

[Ice Storm]

That is, if you are still capable of asking after life's end...

My guess is God will tell you what I earlier stated. You have to explain it at a kindergarden level for a few millennia and leave clues around for a more high school explanation on how things came about later on.

What I like about us Catholics is our church leaders allow for the teaching of evolution in Catholic schools. What I fear is that those who do not believe in the whole or parts of evolution being given power over other people. If these people are few, widely dispersed and do not congregate in large numbers then it isnt a problem but if they have enough sway for an election then it is scary.



I failed to put context as I was either too lazy to write it out or I forgot that people arent privy to the thoughts in my head.

[dpogs]

No, it is not a transitional fossil.   I will explain later kung bakit.
 
Walang kuwenta kasi ang evidence na binibigay dito sa thread in favor of evolution.  Kaya para mas interesting, ako na ang nagbibigay ng malakas na ebidensiya para sa kanila.
 
The media sensation, probably the greatest evidence for evolution ---- the walking fish, the Tiktaalik roseae! 
 

ang dami niyan sa probinsiya namin ... sa panahon ngayon nasa transition period pa pala ang mga isdang iyon...




billion of years from now... magkakaroon na rin ng leeg ito... another billion of years... matuto nang tumira ito sa lupa... paano ko nalaman? sa tingin ko ganoon talaga ang nangyari... kita mo naman sa anyo mukhang may kamay na...

wala nang ibang puwedeng gawin ang isda kungdi ang umahon sa tubig... alangan namang bigla na lang lumitaw ang mga crawling animals... so ito ang pinaka dabest na puwedeng mangari sa isda

[Ice Storm]

Which brings me to a related topic: environmentalists

If evolution is true then being eco-friendly only serves to retard the rise of new species.

Let me explain, during the time of the dinosaurs mammals (and by extension humans) were the dominant species that roamed early Earth. If not for climate change that wiped out dinosaurs then mammals wouldn't have a fighting chance.

Now with climate change happening now if we retard the change it disallows newer species to evolve to replace us.

So yun, if you're eco-minded person you are negating changes. If you are not then you are promoting change in the order of things.

[leomarley]

Uy ibang topic naman yan. Just a reply though, ang problema sa climate change eh man made ang cause niya and not not natural.

[docelmo]

Science is (not always) true. In the sense that what "true" today may not be true tomorrow. By obsevation, experimentation and interpretation we arrive at an understanding of what we observed in nature. Hovewer we are limited by technology and interpretation may be flawed. Science is an understanding or explanation of nature, it is continuing process that maybe modified or discarded as new evidence comes. Also using the word "believe" connotes faith, science does not demand faith, it demands our understanding and acceptance. Thus understanding and acceptance may change in time.

[Ice Storm]

leo, climate change for the dinosaurs could be the result of dino-farts so does that make it dino-made?

Evidence exists that cow-farts contributes to climate change. So should you stop eating that tasty burger?

[Verbl Kint]

Science is (not always) true. In the sense that what "true" today may not be true tomorrow. By obsevation, experimentation and interpretation we arrive at an understanding of what we observed in nature. Hovewer we are limited by technology and interpretation may be flawed. Science is an understanding or explanation of nature, it is continuing process that maybe modified or discarded as new evidence comes. Also using the word "believe" connotes faith, science does not demand faith, it demands our understanding and acceptance. Thus understanding and acceptance may change in time.

Faith is (not always) true. In the sense that what "true" today may not be true tomorrow. By oral tradition, ancient texts and interpretation we arrive at an understanding of what we observed in nature. Hovewer we are limited by comprehension and interpretation may be flawed. Faith is an understanding or explanation of nature, it is continuing process that maybe modified or discarded as new beliefs come. Also using the word "science" connotes education, faith does not demand education, it demands our understanding and acceptance. Thus understanding and acceptance may change in time.


Check it out, I fixed your post.

[docelmo]

That is, if you are still capable of asking after life's end...

Sir,
Since i believe that there is Life after death, then i will be capable to ask Him all questions. If i am wrong then it won't matter since i'll be long dead and gone...

[Ice Storm]

Faith need no evidence to be true to a believer.

Science needs observable events to be true.

Religion & faith comforts those in dire straights that's why I dont mind people believing in whatever they want so long it prevents them from committing suicide or crimes against others.

[docelmo]

Faith is (not always) true. In the sense that what "true" today may not be true tomorrow. By oral tradition, ancient texts and interpretation we arrive at an understanding of what we observed in nature. Hovewer we are limited by comprehension and interpretation may be flawed. Faith is an understanding or explanation of nature, it is continuing process that maybe modified or discarded as new beliefs come. Also using the word "science" connotes education, faith does not demand education, it demands our understanding and acceptance. Thus understanding and acceptance may change in time.


Check it out, I fixed your post.

Oh. Now i am confused, others here say that having Faith is accepted without question by "uneducated" people like me,  thus unchanging. Yet you say that faith demand undestanding and acceptance and may change in time. which is which?
May mali ba dun sa sinabi ko regarding science not being always true? Yes or no?

Science and faith are two different areas, you cannot use one to disprove the other. Science is physical, faith is spiritual.
So when you say belief in science you are crossing over the territory of faith.

[leomarley]

leo, climate change for the dinosaurs could be the result of dino-farts so does that make it dino-made?

Evidence exists that cow-farts contributes to climate change. So should you stop eating that tasty burger?

yes i've read about that but to stop eating beef is not the only solution. Scientists are testing different diets for cows to reduce the methane production. actually, cows burp more methane than when they're farting. actually around more than 90% of the time.

also, if you think about it, humans are the reason for the population of cows. humans consume cows. the more humans there are, the more cows there are.

Exactly how significant this it to our global environment isn't something that anyone can easily put a number on, but the EPA, NASA, various global agriculture organizations, and the United Nations all recognize that this is a real problem. In recent years, several different solutions have been proposed. Scientists and experts have experimented with cows' diets to see if that could help cut down on the amount of methane gas. For instance, Welsh scientists studied the effects of putting garlic into cows' feed. According to BBC News, "Garlic directly attacks the organisms in the gut that produce methane." So far, results have been positive.

Researchers have also studied adding plants that are high in tannins to the diet, which are believed to lower methane levels in ruminants. Another branch of study focuses on not lowering the amount of methane gas, but figuring out a way to contain it and repurpose it. Some farms have experimented with having their livestock live in a plastic bubble, which takes the expelled gas and converts it into electricity. But this process is both expensive, inefficient, and considered somewhat inhumane, forcing animals to live inside an artificial bubble.

http://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-global-warming-1562144730

[docelmo]

 "Faith is an understanding or explanation of nature" is this your definition of faith?
 
Medyo malayo....
Faith is strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

[leomarley]

Oh. Now i am confused, others here say that having Faith is accepted without question by "uneducated" people like me,  thus unchanging. Yet you say that faith demand undestanding and acceptance and may change in time. which is which?
May mali ba dun sa sinabi ko regarding science not being always true? Yes or no?

Science and faith are two different areas, you cannot use one to disprove the other. Science is physical, faith is spiritual.
So when you say belief in science you are crossing over the territory of faith.

actually, tama naman yung sinabi mo sir. Science adapts when there's new evidence presented and scrutinized. if accepted, papalitan or babaguhin yung theory. but as long as the theory holds true, it is the accepted truth.

But consider this. Religious beliefs change because of Science. Scientific beliefs change not because of Religion but because of Science itself.

[Nelson de Leon]

yes i've read about that but to stop eating beef is not the only solution. Scientists are testing different diets for cows to reduce the methane production. actually, cows burp more methane than when they're farting. actually around more than 90% of the time.

also, if you think about it, humans are the reason for the population of cows. humans consume cows. the more humans there are, the more cows there are.

http://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-global-warming-1562144730

Isama mo na din ang milk from cows. Di ba dapat they harvest ang mga crap ng cows for fuel?

[Verbl Kint]

"Faith is an understanding or explanation of nature" is this your definition of faith?
 
Medyo malayo....
Faith is strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Faith arose because human sentience could not understand existence. For instance:

Early man 1: Why is there a moon, stars, and the sun?
Early man 2: Because it was created by <insert favorite deity here> to give us light.
Early man 1: Why should I believe you?
Early man 2: Because <insert favorite deity here> will smite your heathen ass and punish you and the rest of your kin with eternal darkness.
Early man 1: Oh no! What should I do?
Early man 2: Worship <insert favorite deity here> with prayers and offerings so that he will gift you with grace.
Early man 1: Help me, oh prophet! Tell me what to do!
Early man 2: Ok. Right down everything I say and follow it to the letter...

[dodie]

i think faith and belief are now being mixed up here....

Faith is essentially blind on a scientific point of view.  Belief on the contrary is based on understanding. To believe is to know, then faith takes over…evolutionist simply refuse to extend logic beyond the scientifically verifiable. cant blame them. anyway we are all free men naman na malayang magisip ng sa tingin natin ay tama.

[leomarley]

i think faith and belief are now being mixed up here....

Faith is essentially blind on a scientific point of view.  Belief on the contrary is based on understanding. To believe is to know, then faith takes over…evolutionist simply refuse to extend logic beyond the scientifically verifiable. cant blame them. anyway we are all free men naman na malayang magisip ng sa tingin natin ay tama.

With all due respect, you have a wrong understanding of what logic is. By definition, logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" - Oxford Dictionary. extending logic beyond the scientifically verifiable is actually the absolute opposite meaning of the word.

[docelmo]

Faith arose because human sentience could not understand existence. For instance:

Early man 1: Why is there a moon, stars, and the sun?
Early man 2: Because it was created by <insert favorite deity here> to give us light.
Early man 1: Why should I believe you?
Early man 2: Because <insert favorite deity here> will smite your heathen ass and punish you and the rest of your kin with eternal darkness.
Early man 1: Oh no! What should I do?
Early man 2: Worship <insert favorite deity here> with prayers and offerings so that he will gift you with grace.
Early man 1: Help me, oh prophet! Tell me what to do!
Early man 2: Ok. Right down everything I say and follow it to the letter...

So now man fully understands existence? He longer needs faith?

Faith is from the greek word "pitis" which is translated to Trust.
For example: when someone says i have faith in you. This means two things: first the person you are talikng to actually exist. Second, you are convinced that that person is trustworthy.


I ask again what was wrong with my post that it needed fixing? Kindly point it out.

[dodie]

With all due respect, you have a wrong understanding of what logic is. By definition, logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" - Oxford Dictionary. extending logic beyond the scientifically verifiable is actually the absolute opposite meaning of the word.

eto sir tatlo nakita kong meaning...

log·ic noun \ˈlä-jik\
: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something
: a particular way of thinking about something
: the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning

for me, being reasonable cannot be construed as in accordance to strict principles of validity....

if thats your way of defining it, i view it differently. anyway believe in what you think is factualy right for you but  my faith has guided me to believe otherwise.

[leomarley]

eto sir tatlo nakita kong meaning...

log·ic noun \ˈlä-jik\
: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something
: a particular way of thinking about something
: the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning

for me, being reasonable cannot be construed as in accordance to strict principles of validity....

if thats your way of defining it, i view it differently. anyway believe in what you think is factualy right for you but  my faith has guided me to believe otherwise.

Of course that is your faith and i'm in no position to take that away from you but just one last point of argument. In no way do those meanings align with religion. Religion doesn't teach you how to think, it tells you what to think.

[dodie]

Of course that is your faith and i'm in no position to take that away from you but just one last point of argument. In no way do those meanings align with religion. Religion doesn't teach you how to think, it tells you what to think.

who says that its align with religion? anyway i just chose to believe.......

[docelmo]

Going back on topic: here are some opinions of evolutionists on the problem of trasitional fossil problems....

"Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted:

Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.1

Is it any different today? The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote:

I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.2

The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist — see documentation) Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

[Ice Storm]

Fossils of new species are found all the time so what is lacking now can be completed down the road.

[docelmo]

Fossils of new species are found all the time so what is lacking now can be completed down the road.

Correct, new fossils are discovered but take note of the statement "absence of fossil evidence of intermediary stages" in other words wala pa talaga for more than a century of digging! At least this guy is being honest and upfront about it.

And the gaps in between is not as wide as the pasig river, it's as wide as the grand canyon!

So, don't hold your breath bro!

Eto pa sir:

"All 32 mammal orders appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. The evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote in 1944:

The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."

And up to now this statement has not been refuted....

[RU9]

Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’


VATICAN CITY (RNS) Pope Francis on Monday (Oct. 27, 2014) waded into the controversial debate over the origins of human life, saying the big bang theory did not contradict the role of a divine creator, but even required it.

The pope was addressing the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which gathered at the Vatican to discuss “Evolving Concepts of Nature.”

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.

“He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”

Francis said the beginning of the world was not “a work of chaos” but created from a principle of love. He said sometimes competing beliefs in creation and evolution could co-exist.

“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” the pope said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Unlike much of evangelical Protestantism in the U.S., Catholic teaching traditionally has not been at odds with evolution. In 1950, Pope Pius XII proclaimed there was no opposition between evolution and Catholic doctrine. In 1996, St. John Paul II endorsed Pius’ statement.

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/27/pope-francis-evolution-inconsistent-notion-creation/

[docelmo]

This is the latter part of the report: Popes are after all only human.

Some wondered if Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wanted to change that when he and some acolytes seemed to endorse the theory of intelligent design, the idea that the world is too complex to have evolved according to Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna, a close associate of Benedict, penned a widely noticed 2005 op-ed in The New York Times that said “Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process … is not.”

Giovanni Bignami, a professor and president of Italy’s National Institute for Astrophysics, welcomed Francis’ comments, saying he had buried the “pseudo theories” of creationists.

“The pope’s statement is significant,” Bignami told Italian news agency Adnkronos. “We are the direct descendents from the Big Bang that created the universe. Evolution came from creation.”

Giulio Giorello, professor of the philosophy of science at Milan’s University degli Studi, said he believed Francis was “trying to reduce the emotion of dispute or presumed disputes” with science.

Francis made his speech while unveiling a bust in honor of Benedict, his predecessor, at the Vatican.

“Benedict XVI was a great pope: great for the power and penetration of his intellect, great for his significant contribution to theology, great for his love of the church and of human beings, great for his virtue and piety,” he said.

[barrister]

Fossils of new species are found all the time so what is lacking now can be completed down the road.

In the meantime, not a single transitional fossil has been found. 
 
Do scientists wait until a transitional fossil is found before declaring that evolution is true?  No.  How long have they been saying evolution is true?  For more than a hundred years.
 
Consider this:
 
Darwinists have been claiming for more than a century that the transitional fossils are surely out there, only that they have not yet been found. 
 
The fossil record is immense, with about a billion fossils already found.  After 120 years of searching --- not a single transitional form. 
 
Does the scientist now say that the theory of evolution lacks evidence?  No.  Quite the opposite: science now says evolution is a fact.  You'll need a lot of faith to believe that. 
 
I'm not saying that scientists should believe in creation.  All I'm saying is that scientists should admit that they don't know, or that they are not sure about evolution, and leave it at that.   

[heisenbergman]

In the meantime, not a single transitional fossil has been found.

Whut?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

[barrister]

Whut?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Choose one.  Start with the fossil, then explain why it is transitional.
 
You really think I haven't seen that page before?