Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please tell one actual example of evidence that convinces you? Something that is real, and not just someones opinion.

I'll give you one example which is by itself actually a collection of BILLIONS of data points, each of which is a piece of evidence.

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The above is a phylogenetic tree of life.
It is NOT the result of humans plotting out data or drawing a diagram.
Instead, it is the result of an automated process which mapped out DNA matches by comparing DNA in fully sequenced genomes of millions of species that have been fed into that process.


If evolution occured and species share ancestry, then the collective DNA of all living things should be arranged in a nested hierarchy. Aka, a family tree.
A common root from which all species branch out in a hierarchical fashion.

Look at the link. It's exactly what we find.

Note again that while it is ONE picture, it actually represents BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of individual datapoints - each of which had the potential to "break" the structure.

This is independently verifiable evidence. It is not dependend upon anybody's "words" or claims.
ANYONE, including you, can go and study biology and genetics and run the same experiment, achieving the same results.

The tech is the same as the tech that allows to test familial relationships in courts. For example a paternity test or to see who the closest family members are in case of inheritances etc.

Genetics. It works. And it fits evolution theory like a glove, matching all its testable predictions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If there was Noah's flood, we should find:
1. Vast sediment formations
2. Orogenic mountains
3. Oil, gas and cola fields
4. Marine fossils on high mountain areas.
5. modern continents and signs of braking of original single continent.

Those are objectively verifiable evidence for the flood. If you can't see them, then it probably didn't happen.

Hilarious.
First, most of those are not at all predicted by the noah flood.

Second, the noah flood predicts global geological formations dated to the same period + a universal genetic bottleneck in all species also dated to the same period.

Neither exists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nice, fossils are evidence for that at some point there was such a living thing that for some reason died and was fossilized. Fossil is not evidence for anything more. To explain why it is there and why it died and was fossilized, we would require more information/observations.

I believe it is there because of what happened during the great flood.

We have a fossil record that stretches out about 3.7 billion years.
Are you saying your flood lasted for 3.7 billion years?

If not, then by definition the vast majority of fossils are not the result of some mythical and physically impossible flood.

 

[shunyadragon]

If there was Noah's flood, we should find:
1. Vast sediment formations

No. The present vast amounts of sediment formations on earth are deposited as lake and ocean sediments, beaches, wind-blown desert sand silt deposits, river deltas, glacial deposits, river flood plains, and vast swamps like those we see deposited today. No evidence of world or regional catastrophic flood deposits. The vast limestone deposits with coral reef fossils can only form over millions of years in relatively shallow seas of carbonate deposits as we see around Bermuda today. We have coral reefs still living and growing in the Pacific under and around islands millions of years old. The vast limestone deposits hundreds of feet thick around the world that take millions of years to form are outright obvious evidence that no such world or regional flood is described in the Bible.

There are local catastrophic floods related to Ice Age glaciers. Nothing in Genesis concerning the vast Ice Ages.

2. Orogenic mountains

No. The mountain ranges are evidence of continental drift and the collision of continents over millions of years. Vast amounts of energy over a period of millions of years is required. Present mountain building very slowly due to the collision of continents can be seen today in mountains around the world.

3. Oil, gas and cola fields

Oil and gas fields are related to the accumulation of decayed organic material in sediments over millions of year.

Coal deposits are in very uniform cyclic layers with layers of beach and wind-blown sand formed in vast swamps accumulated over millions of years. Similar to what we see in Florida today.

4. Marine fossils on high mountain areas.
5. modern continents and signs of braking of original single continent.

Those are objectively verifiable evidence for the flood. If you can't see them, then it probably didn't happen.

There is no objectively verifiable evidence for Noah's flood there for you can't see any. Natural processes over millions of years are necessary for how the earth's rocks and eroded surface exist today.

None of the above is remotely evidence for Noah's flood. I am a Geologist with over fifty years of field experience. One of my specialties is geomorphology the study of how landforms and rocks form. We can actually see the natural processes that formed the ancient rocks of the world happening today all over the world.

What is your academic background in geology?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am a Geologist with over fifty years of field experience. One of my specialties is geomorphology the study of how landforms and rocks form.

Whoepsie!

I wonder what his comeback is going to be.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ther is no such evidence for a world regional flood as described in the Bible.

Precsely.

 

[metis]

The Scriptures have been shown to be a rock

Which "Scriptures"?

 

[shunyadragon]

Most of that mirrors stuff in the Bible and I would agree, but imo there are also parts that are wrong and disagree with the truth in the Bible.

You are neglecting the accusations and deep disagreements between Christians concerning the Bible, Differences in wording, as between Christians, do not translate into the uniqueness you claim for your beliefs.

imo people can agree with the truth in a religion and believe the religion and the parts that are wrong are not seen. This leads people away from the truth and down another path, a path where certainly the truth of the gospel is not found and is even denied.

Good thing you referred to imo, and you 'believe,' because you have only demonstrated subjectively what is wrong with other beliefs that are clearly described in other religions as similar beliefs concerning God in terms of love, compassion, and justice. You are arguing subjective semantics to justify the exclusiveness of your beliefs. This is not an effective argument at all, because there are more differences between Christians accusing other churches as wrong based on the same citations you would use accusing other religions as wrong.

All you have done is use subjective criteria from your 'personal perspective,'

 

[shunyadragon]

The Scriptures have been shown to be a rock ...

This is likely why Christians throw scriptures at each other like rocks and literally throw rocks too.

They are stable, eternal, true, solid, indestructible. No one can destroy them, no matter how hard they try.

True of all the scriptures of the religions of the world from the perspective of those that believe

In close to 2 millennia those who tried have not been able to; but long before that already others tried to remove what was already written, or change it. Those couldn't either. The Scriptures began to be written in the 15th century before the common era, but a lot of information it contains came a long time before ...and there they are, even though entire civilizations have fallen. Nor can anyone eliminate the people who fully trust them: the Nazis, the communists, the atheists, and an endless number of brave ones (???) tried it... Why do you think they couldn't?

The Nazis, Communists, and by the way Christians have burned and banned many books, but ah . . . guess what the books are still here.

Well the archaeological and known ancient scriptures clearly demonstrate that the scriptures of the Bible have been edited and changed in the past millennia.

As has already been said in many topics in this forum and everywhere online: scientists are not infallible, they do not always agree with each other, they cannot know everything, they rectify many times, etc.

The fallible nature of scientists is clearly positive in that the knowledge of science has changed over the years with new discoveries and research. Of course, they disagree on some things this is the motive of further research. The bottom line is 95%+ of all scientists agree without question on the foundation of evolution and the geologic history of the earth over 3.7 billion years old.

Too many theologians and believers will not admit they are fallible humans cling to ancient tribal scriptures, and will not change.

Believing that science is God is like believing that a house can be built on sand.

Odd foolish notion based on erratic emotional nonsense, No one as far as I know considers science as God.

If you truly believe scientists consider science as God, please cite the source.

Who is it that builds his house on the sand?

Those that cling to ancient tribal scriptures without the objectively verifiable evidence of science and academic history.

 

[Brian2]

You are neglecting the accusations and deep disagreements between Christians concerning the Bible, Differences in wording, as between Christians, do not translate into the uniqueness you claim for your beliefs.

No I don't neglect that, I just see it a different way and not as a reason to not believe the gospels. I see Satan as the one sowing discord.

Good thing you referred to imo, and you 'believe,' because you have only demonstrated subjectively what is wrong with other beliefs that are clearly described in other religions as similar beliefs concerning God in terms of love, compassion, and justice. You are arguing subjective semantics to justify the exclusiveness of your beliefs. This is not an effective argument at all, because there are more differences between Christians accusing other churches as wrong based on the same citations you would use accusing other religions as wrong.

All you have done is use subjective criteria from your 'personal perspective,'

I use subjective criteria of course. We all have our subjective faith. Jesus is the object of my faith and the truth of the everlasting gospel and why He came.
There are plenty of weeds that have been sown in the Church and plenty of false prophets and false Christs and I can't see myself accepting the legitimacy of what all religions say when they disagree so much in their explanations of life and what is going on and how we are saved and if we need salvation and from what etc.
Jesus is the truth and God's words in the Bible are the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If there was Noah's flood, we should find:
1. Vast sediment formations

Why? What sort? Do you not realize that there are different sorts of sedimentary strata that were deposited in different sorts of environments? The sedimentary strata that we find, except for very small number of exceptions do not appear to be flood deposits.

2. Orogenic mountains

Really? How did that happen in a year without melting the crust? Don't bother, you will not find an answer. Even AiG has no answer to the heat problem.

3. Oil, gas and cola fields

Again why? How much? You cannot just wave your hands, you need models and evidence. And are we talking Coca Cola? Pepsi? RC Cola? The soda drinking public needs to know.

4. Marine fossils on high mountain areas.

Definitely not. At least not as we find them. You do not know the nature of the fossils that can be found on tops of mountains and why they refute the flod.

5. modern continents and signs of braking of original single continent.

No, once again you want to cook Noah and company and burn the ark to a crisp. The heat problem tells us that you are wrong.

Those are objectively verifiable evidence for the flood. If you can't see them, then it probably didn't happen.

No, you are misinterpreting what we do see because you have been lied to by professional liars.

Would you like to know what we would really see?

 

[shunyadragon]

No I don't neglect that, I just see it a different way and not as a reason to not believe the gospels. I see Satan as the one sowing discord.

Unfortunately, you have neglected a lot based on a personal agenda, and here it comes to blame it on a mythical lesser God Satan for anything you do not believe is true i 'other religions and churches.

I use subjective criteria of course. We all have our subjective faith. Jesus is the object of my faith and the truth of the everlasting gospel and why He came.

True, based on what you subjectively believe.

There are plenty of weeds that have been sown in the Church and plenty of false prophets and false Christs and I can't see myself accepting the legitimacy of what all religions say when they disagree so much in their explanations of life and what is going on and how we are saved and if we need salvation and from what etc.
Jesus is the truth and God's words in the Bible are the truth.

These indeed represent the accusations made against each different church and religion against each other when they do not agree, and that is a severe problem when based on ancient tribal scripture with the mythology of lesser Gods like Satan to blame things on.

IT represents the root of the problem of the thread concerning how different Christians deal with Creation Genesis, the Pentateuch, and the gospels when they do not remotely fit our contemporary knowledge of science and history

Also the debate on how science and academic history deal with the supernatural claims today and in history. My position is based on international academic standards endorsed universally in ALL major universities in the world today. It remains odd and incomprehensible what any alternate view is based on other than simply personal preference based on a religious agenda..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice, fossils are evidence for that at some point there was such a living thing that for some reason died and was fossilized. Fossil is not evidence for anything more. To explain why it is there and why it died and was fossilized, we would require more information/observations.

I believe it is there because of what happened during the great flood.

That is not true at all. Here is how science works. One makes observations. One tries to think of an explanation. One makes that explanation in the form of a testable model. That step is key. If you do not have a testable model, and that is usually tested by the predictions that it makes and can be checked against the available evidence, then you do not have a scientific concept. By the way, fossils have been studied seriously for just a little longer than Darwin's time. To be conservative we can call it 150 years. Quite a few fossils have been found. We have enough evidence to test most ideas.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nice, fossils are evidence for that at some point there was such a living thing that for some reason died and was fossilized. Fossil is not evidence for anything more. To explain why it is there and why it died and was fossilized, we would require more information/observations.

I believe it is there because of what happened during the great flood.

Oh, it's evidence for much more than that. Or at least, it can be.

Fossils can tells us:

-How an organism died
-an organism's shape, size, method of locomotion, diet, behaivour, physiology
-an organism's ecological relation to other organisms
-information about the environment in which the organism lived and how it interacted with it
-how an organism evolved
+ more

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh, it's evidence for much more than that. Or at least, it can be.

Fossils can tells us:

-How an organism died
-an organism's shape, size, method of locomotion, diet, behaivour, physiology
-an organism's ecological relation to other organisms
-information about the environment in which the organism lived and how it interacted with it
-how an organism evolved
+ more

Also the age of the fossil.

 

[metis]

"The Power of Myth" by Joseph Cambell and Bill Moyers is one of the best books and t.v. series on religion I've ever read and seen, and I think all here who are theistically inclined or not should read it.

Here's a synopsis of them: The Power of Myth - Wikipedia

 

[SkepticThinker]

Also the age of the fossil.

Yes, thank you!

 

[Brian2]

Unfortunately, you have neglected a lot based on a personal agenda, and here it comes to blame it on a mythical lesser God Satan for anything you do not believe is true i 'other religions and churches.


True, based on what you subjectively believe.

These indeed represent the accusations made against each different church and religion against each other when they do not agree, and that is a severe problem when based on ancient tribal scripture with the mythology of lesser Gods like Satan to blame things on.

IT represents the root of the problem of the thread concerning how different Christians deal with Creation Genesis, the Pentateuch, and the gospels when they do not remotely fit our contemporary knowledge of science and history

Yes religions disagree.

Also the debate on how science and academic history deal with the supernatural claims today and in history. My position is based on international academic standards endorsed universally in ALL major universities in the world today. It remains odd and incomprehensible what any alternate view is based on other than simply personal preference based on a religious agenda..

An alternative view is based on faith in the truth of the scriptures and not in the opinions of people, whether they are endorsed universally or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes religions disagree.



An alternative view is based on faith in the truth of the scriptures and not in the opinions of people, whether they are endorsed universally or not.

Scientific evidence is much much more than "opinion".

 

[Brian2]

Scientific evidence is much much more than "opinion".

Yes , but we were talking about how science and academic history deal with claims of the supernatural and not about science in general.
Supernatural claims in history are supposed to be dealt with in a neutral way but are not and international academic bodies don't seem to be able to see that.