tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post4294583190417218673..comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00Comments on NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Thoughts on EvolutionNickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-78608712393313110422023-09-13T13:23:13.037-07:002023-09-13T13:23:13.037-07:00The scientific refutation of darwinian evolution
C...The scientific refutation of darwinian evolution<br />Contents:<br />- WHAT ARE THE FACTS OF EVOLUTION?<br />1, A FUNDAMENTALLY SUBJECTIVE APPROACH<br />2, IT CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE ORIGIN OF ITS OWN ABILITIES<br />3, IT MANIPULATES THE GENETIC PROGRAM OF DNA<br />4, UNABLE TO ANSWER THE ORIGIN OF MUTATIONS<br />5, HE BASES HIS DOCTRINE OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION ON RANDOM MUTATIONS AND RECOMBINATIONS.<br />6, MANIPULATION OF NATURAL SELECTION<br />7, EVOLUTION'S LIE ABOUT SELECTION<br />8, MANIPULATING THE EMERGENCE OF NEW SPECIES<br />9, THE PITFALLS OF DARWIN'S THEORY OF SELECTION IN FIVE POINTS<br />10. THE PROBLEM OF THE EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT OF THE ELEPHANT<br />11. COMPLEX STRUCTURES BY EVOLUTION?<br />12. THE BIASED CHOICE OF ACADEMIC SCIENCE <br />13 EVOLUTION FOR SUCKERS<br /><br />https://darhiwum.blogspot.com/2023/09/the-scientific-refutation-of-darwinian.html<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-31736703290507185232022-11-26T19:46:33.748-08:002022-11-26T19:46:33.748-08:00Nick,
I think your reticence is excessive. Natural...Nick,<br />I think your reticence is excessive. Natural philosophy and the Catholic church have coexisted through the centuries. Not without friction, but those can always be ironed out. I'll just leave a quote from "De philosophia mundi", a book written in 1130 by Catholic thinker Guillaume de Conches:<br /><br />"Someone will say that this is to derogate from the divine power ... we reply that, on the contrary, it confers to the divine power, because to that power we attribute the giving of a productive nature to things, and the creation of the human body through that nature."<br /><br />This idea that natural philosophy further adds to the awe for God since everything that is comes from Him, was popular in the 12th century (and the Middle Ages at large - you'll find the same sentiment a century later in Roger Bacon). It doesn't originate from contemporary men like Father Barron.<br /><br />Funnily, de Conches received the same criticism you wrote in your comment above about Adam. We're rehashing 900 years old debates!josenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-8296124708021551602019-02-16T13:24:15.366-08:002019-02-16T13:24:15.366-08:00Hi Nick,
Do you like this article?:
https://crea...Hi Nick,<br /><br />Do you like this article?:<br /><br />https://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friendGarfield Katnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-9074428495787755052018-01-29T11:02:23.108-08:002018-01-29T11:02:23.108-08:00"When a theologian accepts evolution as the p..."When a theologian accepts evolution as the process used by the Creator, he must be willing to go all the way with it. Not only is it an orderly process, it is a continuing one. Nothing was finished on the seventh day; the process of creation is still going on." (Dr. Kirtley F Mather, Harvard University, 1960)Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-77171981628449351802018-01-29T11:01:44.511-08:002018-01-29T11:01:44.511-08:00If naturalists continue on chiseling the concept o...If naturalists continue on chiseling the concept of personhood in accordance to their materialistic philosophy, then they will inevitably be rendering our unique characteristics to mere projections of the human mind. According to them, we are nothing more than a bunch of glimmering electrons, clashing atoms, and chemical reactions. This involves the deconstruction of reality, and if adhered to consistently many unspeakably evil societal consequences.Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-9963443971733253012017-11-29T20:06:53.585-08:002017-11-29T20:06:53.585-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-70520656336744323522013-09-16T11:43:44.982-07:002013-09-16T11:43:44.982-07:00Michael,
The issue isn't about having a &quo...Michael, <br /><br />The issue isn't about having a "scientific background," since the subject matter is much more broad than what modern day science will affirm. A larger percentage of influential scientists are atheist and have already defaulted to evolution, so it would be naive to think the evolution question is a settled matter based on science alone. <br /><br />The real subject at hand is of a philosophical nature. These same atheist scientists who affirm a big bang are already biased so as to deny God was necessary to get this big bang going from the start. Caught up in this is the fact evolution is largely a historical question, but science cannot really answer historical questions since it's based on present observability. <br /><br />This also has nothing to do with a "fundamentalist approach to Scripture," since that comes off as putting a wedge between trusting Scripture versus trusting science. There is no conflict, but unfortunately most Christians who say there is no conflict end up sacrificing the inspiration of Scripture for science. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-12927693560474842932013-09-14T07:40:13.589-07:002013-09-14T07:40:13.589-07:00Is there anyone here who has a scientific backgrou...Is there anyone here who has a scientific background that does not believe in evolution?<br /><br />I think most people who deny evolution get their evidence from a fundamentalist approach to Scripture, rather than interpreting Scripture as narratives teaching a spiritual truth. Does anyone here have a scientific background?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09707894917062312096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-56972456963424267032013-09-14T04:51:38.428-07:002013-09-14T04:51:38.428-07:00Big Bang Theory contradicts the teaching of the sc...Big Bang Theory contradicts the teaching of the scripture.<br /><br />The following are the extracts from the website, http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html :<br /><br />‘About 400 million years after the Big Bang, the universe began to emerge from the cosmic dark ages during the epoch of reionization. During this time, which lasted more than a half-billion years, clumps of gas collapsed enough to form the first stars and galaxies, whose energetic ultraviolet light ionized and destroyed most of the neutral hydrogen.<br />Although the expansion of the universe gradually slowed down as the matter in the universe pulled on itself via gravity, about 5 or 6 billion years after the Big Bang, a mysterious force now called dark energy began speeding up the expansion of the universe again, a phenomenon that continues today.<br />A little after 9 billion years after the Big Bang, our solar system was born.’<br /><br />My comment: The stars were formed about 400 million years after the Big Bang and yet our earth was formed a little after 9 billion years after the Big Bang.<br /><br />Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”<br /><br />As the phrase, darkness was upon the face of the deep, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that there was no light on earth. If stars were created at that time, starlight would still be visible at that time especially the sea water would reflect the starlight from the sky.<br /><br />The following is the extract from the website, http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html, that states that stars do give off light:<br /><br />‘Stars do give off light, that's why we can see them far away. The Sun, which is just an ordinary star, gives off the light that allows life to exist on Earth. Stars give off light the same way the filament in a light bulb does. Anything that is hot will glow. Cool stars glow red, stars like the Sun glow yellow, and really hot stars glow white or even blue-white.’<br /><br />As stars could give off light by themselves and yet the earth was filled with water initially as mentioned in Genesis 1:2, the sea water would reflect the starlight and would cause the earth no longer to be in darkness if stars would be assumed to be created prior to the formation of the earth. The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2, implies the absence of light especially the starlight in the sea that reflects the light from stars in the sky. As the scripture mentions with the word, darkness, there is no reason to assume that stars could exist in Genesis 1:2 at the presence of the earth or else the sea water would not be in darkness instead, there should be many spots of starlight. Or in other words, the scripture places the stars’ creation to be in Genesis 1:16 after the creation of the earth, Genesis 1:2, should be considered in sequential order since the stars should be created after the formation of the earth or else the earth would not be in darkness as mentioned in Genesis 1:2 since it would reflect the starlight. However, the Big Bang Theory supports the reverse and that is stars should be formed prior to the formation of the earth.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08768692856812429799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-36017315144789833782013-09-11T05:04:33.420-07:002013-09-11T05:04:33.420-07:00Is gap theory or the so-called, Lucifer’s flood, j...Is gap theory or the so-called, Lucifer’s flood, justifiable from scriptural point of view? Was there any living creature during or prior to the event in Genesis 1:2?<br /><br />The gap theory or the so-called, Lucifer’s flood, that could be located in the website, http://www.gotquestions.org/Lucifers-flood.html , states that it supports another human races without souls that have no connection with any genetic mutation with the plants, animals and human living today could have existed during or prior to the event in Genesis 1:2. At that time, Satan was a ruler of the earth and sin entered into the universe as a result of its rebellion that caused God to execute His judgment with pre-flood as mentioned in Genesis 1:2.<br /> <br />Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and DARKNESS [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.<br /> <br />The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2 rejects the possibility of any light on this earth. As long as there was sunlight, the entire earth at that time should not be in darkness. As the earth was in darkness, the sun was not created at that time. <br /> <br />As we know plants needed sunlight to perform photosynthesis. Without sunlight, carbon dioxide could not be able to divert to oxygen through photosynthesis. Without sunlight, all the oxygen on this earth would be diverted to carbon dioxide due to the respiration of all living creatures even if oxygen would have existed in Genesis 1:2. How could there be any animals, especially another human race, to be able to survive in Genesis 1:2 at the absence of sunlight since they needed oxygen to breathe in? How could animals be able to evolve from one to another at the absence of sunlight for a prolonged period, such as, million years, due to oxygen would entirely be consumed without a chance to be diverted to oxygen at the absence of sunlight? Thus, it is impossible to have another human race to have existed in Genesis 1:2. As it is impossible to have another human race to have existed in Genesis 1:2, how could it be that Genesis 1:2 was treated to be God’s judgment in bringing flood?<br />zumanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-24509667099257807782013-09-10T17:26:05.212-07:002013-09-10T17:26:05.212-07:00Zuma,
Thank you for these quotes. I basically ca...Zuma, <br /><br />Thank you for these quotes. I basically came to the same conclusions in my article. It cannot be ignored that Evolution is caught up in philosophy, and Pius said the Communists promote it because it conforms to their materialist philosophy and obliterates the notion of 'essences' and the spirit realm. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-16095469505251095992013-09-09T08:02:38.373-07:002013-09-09T08:02:38.373-07:00Miller and Harold Urey did successfully create non...Miller and Harold Urey did successfully create non-life organic compounds through experiments in year 1950s. The successful creation of non-life organic compounds does not provide the evidence that lively creatures could be evolved from non-life object. This is simply due to they failed to create lively organic compounds previously. Thus, it is not justifiable for any scientists to use them as an excuse that lively unicellular organisms could be evolved from non-life object.<br /> <br />The following is the extract from the website, http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/courses/v1001/7.html , under the subtitle, VI. LIFE EVOLVES :<br /> <br />'Such experiments have been repeated many times and it is clear that it is easy to make many complex organic compounds BUT NONE OF THESE SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS PRODUCED EVEN THE BASICS OF LIFE.So have scientists managed to produce life from non-life? Many have tried, but no experiment has succeeded. A scientist called Stanley Miller made an attempt at this and claimed that he had succeeded. However a closer look at his experiment shows that even he did not succeed (for more info on Stanley Miller’s experiment click here.This was shown in the famous Miller-Urey experiments done in the 1950's.'<br /> <br />The same is mentioned in the third paragraph from the website, http://www.findtheanswer.net/whataboutevolution/waechemicallife.php :<br /> <br />'So have scientists managed to produce life from non-life? Many have tried, but no experiment has succeeded. A scientist called STANLEY MILLER MADE AN ATTEMPT at this and claimed that he had succeeded. However A CLOSER LOOK AT HIS EXPERIMENT shows that even HE DID NOT SUCCEED (for more info on Stanley Miller’s experiment click here.'<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08768692856812429799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-17847768378386107272013-09-07T19:13:02.605-07:002013-09-07T19:13:02.605-07:00The doctrine of evolution contradicts the books of...The doctrine of evolution contradicts the books of New Testament:<br /><br />Provided with environmental factors that would be suitable for apes to be transformed into human beings in the past, many of them would evolve into human beings at that time. There is no reason to assume that there would only be one man to be evolved from evolution if the environmental condition would turn up to be suitable for apes to evolve. If human beings flourished in the past were the result of the evolution of many apes, the origin of human beings could not be traced back to one man, i.e. Adam. The sin of Adam would not affect all human races if their forefathers could not trace back to him but to another human being that would have been evolved from other apes. Why is it that Romans 5:12, 14 & 1 Corinthians 15:22 mention that all fall into sin by one man? Thus, the doctrine of evolution does contradict Romans 5:12, 14 & 1 Corinthians 15:22. <br /><br />The following are the extracts:<br /><br />Romans 5:12, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”<br />Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. <br /><br /> 1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. <br /><br />If human beings were evolved from apes, did Jesus die for apes also as they were the forefathers of human beings? Why should Jesus Christ not die for apes when human beings were evolved from them? <br /><br />Was Eve formed from Adam?<br /><br />Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; <br /><br /> Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. <br /><br /> Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.<br /><br /> 1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.<br /><br />If 1 Timothy 2:13 should be interpreted literally, why shouldn’t Genesis 2:21-23 be interpreted the same literally since both of them agree that Adam was formed prior to the existence of Eve?<br /><br />Besides, there should not be any reason for 1 Timothy 2:14 to mention the word, Adam, if this word in the book of Genesis should not be interpreted literally. As the word, Adam, is mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:14, the book of Genesis should be interpreted literally instead of treating it to be a non-existing event. The following is the extract:<br /><br /> 1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.<br /><br />If the first human beings were not made by God but evolved through nature, why should the word, made, be mentioned in Matthew 19:4?<br /><br /> Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, <br /><br /> Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?<br />zumanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-10091063683538530522013-09-07T02:52:25.825-07:002013-09-07T02:52:25.825-07:00It is irrational to assume that active volcanoes m...It is irrational to assume that active volcanoes might erupt in the water or the earth could be in molten stage. This is by virtue of any of these disasters would cause the earth to be shone with brightness especially the presence of larva. The word, darkness, as mentioned in Genesis 1:2 rejects the possibility of the earth in molten stage or the presence of eruption from volcanoes.<br /><br />The following is the extract from the ninth paragraph of the website, http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/28/starsgalaxiesandplan... :<br /><br />‘Early Earth was a very different place to the planet we inhabit today. Initially the planet didn't have a crust, mantle and core, and instead all the elements were evenly mixed. There were no oceans nor continents and no atmosphere. Meteorite collisions, radioactive decay and planetary compression made Earth become hotter and hotter. After a few hundred million years the temperature of Earth reached 2,000C - the melting point of iron - and Earth's core was formed.’<br /><br />My comment: As Genesis 1:2 supports that the whole earth was covered with water, it opposes scientific evolution of earth that supports the non-existence of ocean.<br /><br />As Genesis 1:2 mentions that the earth was filled with darkness and water, it is impossible for the earth to become hotter due to the absence of sign that the earth was in molten stage or the sign of larva from the eruption of volcanoes. The presence of eruption of volcanoes or the earth in molten stage would cause some brightness on the earth.<br /><br />The following is the extract from the twenty second paragraph under the heading, How our earth was formed (Apr, 1923), from the website, http://blog.modernmechanix.com/how-our-earth-was-formed/ :<br /><br />It- is reasonably certain that the earth at first was very hot, hot enough to be molten all the way through. Its surface was a sea of melted rock in which great flaming tides hundreds of feet high raced twice daily around the globe. Gradually the rock grew cooler. It hardened. After awhile there was a solid surface crust. And slowly, after many millions of years, this crust grew cool enough for water to collect in hollows on it and to stay there. The first oceans were formed.<br /><br />My comment: As Genesis 1:2 mentions that the earth was in darkness, it is irrational to support that the earth was in molten stage due to the absence of sign of brightness on earth.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08768692856812429799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-25315038888460480002013-09-07T02:51:44.592-07:002013-09-07T02:51:44.592-07:00Scientific evolution of the earth contradicts the ...Scientific evolution of the earth contradicts the scriptural view of God’s creation:<br /><br />The following is the extract from the website, http://www.bobthealien.co.uk/earthform.htm, under the subtitle, Four billion years ago, seems to support the presence of the sun prior to the formation of the earth:<br /><br />‘This is an artist's impression of what Earth looked like 4 BILLION YEARS AGO. The planet has no oxygen in its atmosphere and no ozone layer, so poisonous ULTRAVIOLET RAYS FROM THE SUN HIT THE SURFACE DIRECTLY….”<br /><br />The website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/earth_timeline/earth_formed ., under the heading, THE EARTH FORMS, seems to imply the simultaneous formation of the sun and the earth:<br />‘THE EARTH IS thought to have been FORMED about 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in the giant disc-shaped cloud of material that ALSO FORMED THE SUN. Gravity slowly gathered this gas and dust together into clumps that became asteroids and small early planets called planetesimals. These objects collided repeatedly and gradually got bigger, building up the planets in the Solar System, including the Earth’<br /><br />My comment: Genesis 1:3-5, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” (King James Version)<br /><br />Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.”<br /><br />Genesis 1:3-5 should undoubtedly refer to the creation of sun since the phrase, God divided the light the darkness, is mentioned in Genesis 1:4. As Genesis 1:4, the creation of sun, is mentioned after Genesis 1:2, the creation of the earth, it implies that the sun only existed after the creation of the earth. Even if some would assume that the creation of sun should fall within day four, the creation of sun was still treated to be after the creation of the earth since Genesis 1:2, the creation of the earth, is mentioned before the day four.<br /><br />Some might argue that the arrangement of creation in Genesis 1 should not be in sequential order. However, there is no reason to assume that the scripture would support the sun could be created prior to the earth since the phrase, the earth was…darkness….upon the face of the deep, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2. The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2 implies the absence of light on earth. As long as there was sunlight on earth, the entire darkness on earth should not be present. As the word, darkness, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies the non-existence of sun or else the earth should be filled with some brightness. Thus, the scripture supports the sun was created after the earth and yet scientific evolution supports otherwise. Besides, the arrangement of creation in Genesis 1 should be in sequential order.<br /><br />The following is the extract from the website, http://www.mcwdn.org/MAPS&GLOBES/Earth.html, to support the earth was a ball of white gases with extreme heat:<br /><br />‘The earth was formed in the same way as the sun, planets, stars. At first the earth was a hot glowing ball of white hot gases with a temperature that was millions of degrees Fahrenheit. This was caused by particles of gases being drawn together and compressed, giving off a lot of heat. This happened millions of years ago.’<br /><br />My comment: Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon THE FACE OF WATERS.”<br /><br />Genesis 1:9, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.”<br /><br />As the phrase, the face of waters, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that the earth was initially filled with water. As the earth was covered with water initially, it would be impossible for the earth to emit gases since all its lands were under water.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08768692856812429799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-76662599578033319222013-09-05T07:20:54.397-07:002013-09-05T07:20:54.397-07:00Was the earth formed through several destructions ...Was the earth formed through several destructions that were brought forth by volcanoes, meteorites and etc.? Does it differ from scriptural point of view?<br /><br />Scriptural verses about the creation of the earth:<br /> <br />Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”<br /> <br />Genesis 1:9-10, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”<br /> <br />The phrase, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, in Genesis 1:2, implies that the scripture supports that the earth was initially covered with water. As the phrase, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together…and let the dry land appear, is mentioned in Genesis 1:9-10, it implies the appearance of land lately. Thus, the scripture supports that the land was not visible on the surface of the earth since it was covered with water.<br /> <br />As the scripture mentions that the earth was covered with water, it is unlikely that volcanoes could be visible at that time since they should be under the sea water. As all the mountains were in the sea as mentioned in Genesis 1:2, how could the earth be under-attacked by volcanoes? As all the lands were in the sea water as mentioned in the scripture, how could the earth be under-attacked by meteorites? This is by virtue of meteorites would simply drop into the sea without any strong impact upon the land of the earth.<br /> <br />The following is the extract from the website, http://www.universetoday.com/76509/how-was-the-earth-formed/ , in which contradiction has been found against the scripture:<br /> <br />‘This first eon in which the Earth existed is what is known as the Hadean period, named after the Greek word “Hades” (underworld) which refers to the condition of the planet at the time. During this time, the Earth’s surface was under a continuous bombardment by meteorites, and volcanism is believed to be severe due to the large heat flow and geothermal gradient. Outgassing and volcanic activity produced the primordial atmosphere. Condensing water vapor, augmented by ice delivered by comets, accumulated in the atmosphere and cooled the molten exterior of the planet to form a solid crust and produced the oceans. This period ended roughly 3.8 years ago with the onset of the Archean age, by which time, the Earth had cooled significantly and primordial life began to evolve.’<br />zumanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-47810948487518059952013-09-04T18:48:35.258-07:002013-09-04T18:48:35.258-07:00The discrepancies between the scripture and the sc...The discrepancies between the scripture and the scientific evolution of the earth:<br /><br />The scriptural verses about the beginning of the earth:<br /><br />Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”<br /><br />Genesis 1:9-10, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”<br /><br />As the phrase, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that the earth was initially covered with water.<br /><br />As the phrase, let the dry land appear, is mentioned in Genesis 1:9-10, it implies that land should appear lately. If the land should appear first, there should not be any reason for the scripture to mention with the phrase, let the dry land appear. Besides, it would not be possible for the scripture to mention with the phrase, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered unto one place, if the land should have appeared before the existence of sea. Even if one might assume that land and sea water would coexist in the beginning in the creation of the earth, why should the scripture mention with the phrase, Let the dry land appear, as if that there was no land initially on earth?<br /><br /><br />The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/timeline/timeline.html , pertaining to the evolution of the earth:<br /><br />4650 mya: Formation of chondrules in the Solar Nebula<br /> - 4567 mya: Formation of the Solar System<br /> Sun was only 70% as bright as today.<br /> - 4500 mya: Formation of the Earth.<br /> - 4450 mya: The Moon accretes from fragments<br /> of a collision between the Earth and a planetoid;<br /> Moon's orbit is beyond 64,000 km from the Earth.[33]<br /> EARTH DAY IS 7 HOUR’S LONG[34]<br /> - Earth's original hydrogen and helium atmosphere<br /> escapes Earth's gravity.<br /> - 4455 mya: Tidal locking causes one side<br /> of the Moon to face the Earth permanently.[30]<br /> - 3900 mya: Cataclysmic meteorite bombardment.<br /> The Moon is 282,000 km from Earth.[34]<br /> EARTH DAY IS 14.4 HOURS LONG[34]<br /> - Earth's atmosphere becomes mostly<br /> carbon dioxide, water vapor,<br /> methane, and ammonia.<br /> - Formation of carbonate minerals starts<br /> reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide.<br /> - There is no geologic record for the Hadean Eon.<br /><br />My comment: As listed above, the earth day was 7 hour’s long in 4450 mya and yet in 3000 mya, its speed reduced to 14.4 hour’s long per earth day. Thus, the spinning speed of the earth was super fast prior to 4450 mya since it took 7 hour’s long to finish its full day. In such a high speed, all the substances, such as, sea water, would fly out of the sky. Or in other words, sea water should not be in existence in beginning of the evolution of the earth.<br /><br />As listed above also, earth’s orginal hydrogen and helium atmosphere would escape from the earth’s gravity in 4450 mya. Considering the environmental condition if the whole earth was filled with water, it is impossible for the earth to emit hydrogen and helium when the land was covered fully with water.<br /><br />Besides, the rapid spinning of the earth in 7 hour’s long prior to 4450 mya would cause sea water to fly out of the earth.<br /><br />The above show the contradiction between the scripture and the scientific evolution of the earth.<br />zumanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-64621486248855658062013-08-17T05:43:25.754-07:002013-08-17T05:43:25.754-07:00Nevertheless, Paul Pius XII did not support that e...Nevertheless, Paul Pius XII did not support that evolutionary theory is the truth of God despite he did not forbid its teaching.<br />zumanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-45305953087461253292013-08-17T05:42:43.701-07:002013-08-17T05:42:43.701-07:00Comment upon the speech of Pope Pius XII as listed...Comment upon the speech of Pope Pius XII as listed above. As the phrase, cannot afford to ignore…these…erroneous opinions, is mentioned above, it implies that he demanded Christians to be alert and beware of these erroneous opinions instead of ignoring them to let it has the influence upon the Church. The phrase, these false theories, gives the implication that he treated evolutionary theory to be a false theory and should not be treated as part of the truth of God.<br /><br />Pope Pius XII followed his speech: “10. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that CATHOLIC TEACHERS generally AVOID THESE ERRORS, it is apparent, however, that SOME TODAY, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and FEARING TO BE CONSIDERED IGNORANT OF RECENT SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS, TRY TO WITHDRAW THEM FROM THE SACRED TEACHING AUTHORITY and are accordingly in danger of gradually DEPARTING FROM REVEALED TRUTH and of drawing others along with them into error.”<br /><br />Comment upon the speech of Pope Pius XII as listed above. As the phrase, Catholic teachers…avoid these errors, is mentioned above, it implies that Catholic teachers should avoid these errors especially evolution had been treated by him as the new erroneous philosophy. As the phrase, some today…fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, is mentioned before the phrase, departing from…truth, it implies that he treated some people that involved in evolution (recent findings) to be those people that depart from the truth of God.<br /><br />Pope Pius XII followed his speech by: “36. For these reasons THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF CHURCH DOES NOT FORBID that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, 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 - for the CATHOLIC FATIH obliges us to HOLD that SOULS ARE IMMEDIATELY CREATED BY GOD. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”<br /><br />As the phrase, the teaching authority of church does not forbid…the doctrine of evolution, is mentioned above, it implies that Paul Pius XII did not interfere the doctrine of evolution despite he treated it as new erroneous philosophy. <br /><br />As the phrase, souls are immediately created by God, is mentioned above, it implies that he supported that Catholic faith should be based on the concept that all souls are immediately created by God. This teaching certainly contradicts evolutionary theory that teaches that all souls could not be created immediately by God but it would take many years to evolve so as to come into being. Besides, evolutionary theory supports that God do not create directly all souls but have assisted in the process of evolution. This concept is certainly wrong since it implies that God do not involve in the creation of souls but to stand aside just to assist them to be formed. A question has to be raised. Did God create the souls personally or He just stood aside to assist their formation?zumanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-39844996774884174872013-08-17T05:41:38.580-07:002013-08-17T05:41:38.580-07:00Despite Pope Pius XII did not forbid evolutionary ...Despite Pope Pius XII did not forbid evolutionary theory, he treated it to be the new erroneous philosophy.<br /><br />The following are the extracts from the speech of Pope Pius XII at St. Peter’s (Rome) on 12th August 1950:<br /><br />Pope Pius XII: “5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that EVOLUTION, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.”<br />6. SUCH fictitious tenets of EVOLUTION which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, HAVE PAVED THE WAY FOR THE NEW ERRONEOUS PHILOSOPHY which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.<br /><br />Comment upon the speech of Pope Pius XII as listed above and observe those letters that are placed in capital letters. As the phrase, evolution…have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy, is mentioned above, it implies that he treated evolutionary doctrine to be misleading and erroneous. As evolution was treated by Pope Pius XII to be the new erroneous philosophy, he did not treat it to be the truth of God.<br /><br />Pope Pius XII followed his speech: “8. IN ALL THIS CONFUSION OF OPINION it is some consolation to Us to see former adherents of rationalism today frequently desiring to return to the fountain of divinely communicated truth, and to acknowledge and profess the word of God as contained in Sacred Scripture as the foundation of religious teaching. But at the same time it is a matter of regret that not a few of these, the more firmly they accept the word of God, so much the more do they diminish the value of human reason, and the more they exalt the authority of God the Revealer, the more severely do they spurn the teaching office of the Church, which has been instituted by Christ, Our Lord, to preserve and interpret divine revelation. This attitude is not only plainly at variance with Holy Scripture, but is shown to be false by experience also. For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.”<br /><br />Comment upon the speech of Pope Pius XII as listed above. The phrase, In all this confusion of opinion, as mentioned above should refer to his speech as mentioned earlier pertaining to his thought of evolution. The phrase, In all this confusion of opinion, as mentioned above, gives us the impression that he treated evolution to be full of confusion. <br /><br />Pope Pius XII followed his speech: “9. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, CANNOT AFFORD TO IGNORE OR NEGLECT THESE MORE OR LESS ERRONEOUS OPINIONS. Rather they must come to understand THESE SAME THEORIES well, both because DISEASES ARE NOT PROPERLY TREATED unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in THESE FALSE THEORIES a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.”zumanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-89396838158829078982013-07-15T14:10:03.937-07:002013-07-15T14:10:03.937-07:00Hello Serena,
I read that bacteria article a few...Hello Serena, <br /><br />I read that bacteria article a few times over and it's not clear to me exactly what was being 'proven'. They apparently found that one strand of the Ecoli would consistently and eventually develop the ability to digest citrate. But this didn't appear to be an 'essence' changing mutation but rather something akin to a human being able to eat digest grass. Is an acquired digestive ability proof of evolution? <br /><br />Also, the article concluded with something strange, saying: "the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome." This comes off as suggesting the citrate ability was not a good thing, as if it led to negative effects overall. <br /><br />Lastly, it was not clear to me just how improbable of an 'evolution' this was. Was it something that required so much controlled environment and so many mutations that it would be mathematically unlikely if it were to happen in nature? <br /><br /><br />As for the primate chromosome clip, the two main problems there are (1) assuming that similarity demands common ancestry, and (2) even more problematic is the eradication of 'essences' and reducing the difference between human and ape to that of chromosomes, which is then ultimately the atheistic-materialist view in which everything is simply a different configuration of atoms and nothing more. <br /><br />There are famous atheists like Thomas Nagel that have rejected evolution on philosophical grounds and have received the worst kind of treatment from the establishment. Here is an article that came out a few months back where Nagel was effectively labeled a 'heretic': <br />http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?nopager=1<br /><br /><br /><br />Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-76258738135573865422013-07-13T16:18:36.604-07:002013-07-13T16:18:36.604-07:00Hi Nick,
True anthropology and archaeology use di...Hi Nick,<br /><br />True anthropology and archaeology use different methodology that the "hard sciences". But since evolution transcends scientific disciplines, there has been evolution in progress that has been seen.<br /><br />They've seen bacteria evolve in a lab:<br />http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.UeHbCm37bIs<br /><br />Also, primates have an extra pair of chromosomes than humans. Scientists never had an answer of what happened to the extra pair of chromosomes until they cracked the genome of the chimp: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oweUN-GaN3M<br /><br />I can see your problem with evolution and human "essence", and evolution can't really explain for that. In fact, the branch of study that tries to account for that,evolutionary psychology, is often debated in the scientific community if it is a legitimate study of evolution. http://io9.com/the-rise-of-the-evolutionary-psychology-douchebag-757550990<br />Serenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16906910140602006099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-52242484190753882772013-07-11T11:11:31.771-07:002013-07-11T11:11:31.771-07:00Hello Serena,
I don't see how scientists are...Hello Serena, <br /><br />I don't see how scientists are "seeing what they are seeing" when evolution pertains mostly to history and not experiments in the lab. In other words, they're not really watching evolution take place so much as they're saying evolution must have taken place over the course of billions of years. <br /><br />I don't believe that most scientists, including the ones who study origins of life, take a critical look at evolution. And that's the key word, "critical" in the sense of an unbiased and objective look at the mechanics. They just default to it. And if you've seen movies like "Expelled" you'll see atheist scientists who have problems with evolution but none the less are forced to keep quiet or lose their job. <br /><br />Evolution is more than just saying the earth or universe is millions/billions of years old. It's much more than that, saying that natures (in the Scholastic sense) evolved. In fact, evolution is basically based on the total rejection of 'essences' and instead sees everything as merely materialistic re-organization of atoms. So what distinguishes a tree from a horse isn't 'essence' but simply a reconfiguration of atoms. <br /><br />In terms of verifying evolution in the lab, I really don't see how it can be done, for a few reasons. First, it's impossible to simulate in the lab a process that they admit takes millions of years. And when it comes to fossils, it would be highly improbable that a verifiable set of transitional fossils could be found given that many fossils are lost to the decay process and the realization that there's (allegedly) been so many billions of extinct species that you wouldn't be able to really connect the dots. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-61094428601617675862013-07-10T21:35:07.455-07:002013-07-10T21:35:07.455-07:00Nick,
I think you would have to admit you reject ...Nick,<br /><br />I think you would have to admit you reject evolution on theological grounds not scientific, which isn't a proper way to reject a scientific claim; just as the new atheists reject all theology on scientific claims. <br /><br />Yes men are let astray by errors and heresies, but science can only view what is measurable and observable. You would have to believe that scientists who continue to observe findings based on evolution are not really seeing what they are seeing. <br /><br />"And the truth is, most who subscribe to evolution don't take a critical look at it, they just blindly accept" A layman like myself perhaps. But actual scientists, whose job it is to study the origins of life don't take a critical look at evolution?!<br /><br />The Eastern belief stems from what the East believes is a mistranslation of Romans 5:12 "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned," (Douay-Rheims Version). <br /><br />The East translates it as "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, because of which all have sinned," (Douay-Rheims Version). Because death passes upon all men, all of us sin.<br /><br />Yes, we chose to sin because of free will, but no human (with the exception of Mary)is successful at avoiding sin; because we will all succumb to death. <br /><br />In case you are interested, here is where some of my exploration of eastern theology began east2west.org/Serenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16906910140602006099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-35617002945309712232013-07-09T17:11:13.420-07:002013-07-09T17:11:13.420-07:00Kim,
Much of our world is blind to the truth and...Kim, <br /><br />Much of our world is blind to the truth and millions, even billions, of people have been led astray by errors and heresies. And the truth is, most who subscribe to evolution don't take a critical look at it, they just blindly accept. Those who do take a critical look have their careers jeopardized. Even if a person simply said they're agnostic about the matter, their career would be in jeopardy (I've met people in higher education who have told me this). <br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by humans "sin because we die," since Adam was originally not subject to death. Plus, death is more or less out of our control, where as sin is more or less in our control, being an act of the will. Nothing is strictly compelling us to sin, which is why for something to be properly sin we must do the act freely and intentionally. <br /><br />Even Jimmy Akin brought up the point that Adam and Eve in their original creation were adults, not infants and children raised and nursed by some sub-human parents. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.com