Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[IndigoChild5559]

Because there was a massive flood that for example seems to have carried everything away from the area that is now called Atlantic ocean.

There is plenty of evidence for many local floods, but no evidence of any global flood.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Because there was a massive flood that for example seems to have carried everything away from the area that is now called Atlantic ocean.

Did you get this from your Bible or a creation apologetics site? You didn't get it from an academic source.

There was also layer of material that would be formed into limestone.

You don't know how limestone is formed, do you? If you did, you would also know where it forms and why it takes millennia to form appreciable amounts it.

If all apes has same broken thing, it does not necessary mean it was created in to them.

Yes, it does. It means the feature is congenital, not acquired.

It is possible that same error happened and caused the broken thing.

No, it's not.

Also, in this case, I think it is possible that in the ark there was only one kind of apes and all modern apes are offspring of those that were in the ark. So, it may be that they inherited that from the common ancestor.

Now you're beginning to approach the science, but you still need to ditch the ark. You're describing common descent in evolution theory via a last common ancestor to a modern clade - the family of apes extant apes - over geological time.

That revokes the whole evolution theory that says basically that genetic variation is increasing.

No, the theory doesn't predict or claim that. I doubt you mean punctuated equilibrium, which says that the rate of evolution can accelerate or slow, but that doesn't depend on increased genetic variation.

Sorry, I have no intelligent reason to believe you.

You didn't need to say that. You belief by faith, not reason.

I have no reason to think it would have been a problem.

Nor that. You have no reason to believe anything at all that contradicts your religious beliefs. Au contraire. You have reason not to.

You can't convince a man of that which he has a stake in believing, and you can't move him from a position he didn't arrive at via reason applied to evidence by offering him reasoned, evidenced arguments:

"Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water."? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” - Sam Harris

 

[shunyadragon]

One way could be for example:
Before the flood, dry land, or the original continent was covered with dust, as the Bible tells. There was also layer of material that would be formed into limestone. When the flood came, it carried that material to certain place,w here it because thick layer of limestone.

No, limestones contain coral reefs and many ocean animals that could not form as described above. Present coral reefs of the Pacific are thousands of feet of coral.

 

[shunyadragon]

This one guy did say that this was the common way that the supernatural is treated in documents.
Many people on this forum have said as much and even pointed my to the Oxford academic standards for the treatment of the supernatural in academia. He said that the supernatural is meant to be treated with neutrality but then wants this neutrality to be assuming that the prophecy is not true.

Am I this 'one guy' you are referring to me shunyadragon?

Yes, many times in the materials cited Oxford Academic standards are indeed neutral to whether the supernatural events are true or false.

No, the neutrality of the Oxford Academic Standards does not determine whether the events are true or false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If all apes has same broken thing, it does not necessary mean it was created in to them. It is possible that same error happened and caused the broken thing.

Also, in this case, I think it is possible that in the ark there was only one kind of apes and all modern apes are offspring of those that were in the ark. So, it may be that they inherited that from the common ancestor.

So you are including us as apes since we have the same exact gene broken in the same exact spot,.

Not to mention ERV's.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One way could be for example:
Before the flood, dry land, or the original continent was covered with dust, as the Bible tells. There was also layer of material that would be formed into limestone. When the flood came, it carried that material to certain place,w here it because thick layer of limestone.

Remember how I mentioned "the Heat Problem"? Actually there are several of them. You just cooked Noah and family.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If all apes has same broken thing, it does not necessary mean it was created in to them.

It means they share an ancestor in which it got broken.
That's how genetics works.

In a court, sharing such a genetic feature would be more then enough to establish common ancestry.

It is possible that same error happened and caused the broken thing.

About as probable as having a mountain of all the sand of all the beaches in the world, and then randomly picking the same grain of sand 5 times in a row.

Also, in this case, I think it is possible that in the ark there was only one kind of apes and all modern apes are offspring of those that were in the ark.

Including humans.

So, it may be that they inherited that from the common ancestor.

This is just one example. If you also grab all the other shared genetic features, and use the same logic, then the "ark" only require a single population of primitive prokaryotes which is then the ancestor of all species.

Your ad hoc responses reveal both your bias as well as your ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That revokes the whole evolution theory that says basically that genetic variation is increasing.

It does not.

Sorry, I have no intelligent reason to believe you.

Which is only so because you seem to have no clue about how biology works.

 

[1213]

Remember how I mentioned "the Heat Problem"?

There is no heat problem, because there was lot of water to cool things down. If you disagree, please explain why do you think there was a problem.

 

[1213]

It means they share an ancestor in which it got broken.

Not necessary, it is possible to get the same thing broken in different cases, by the same method it happened in some case.

About as probable as having a mountain of all the sand of all the beaches in the world, and then randomly picking the same grain of sand 5 times in a row.

And that all species evolved to this diversity from single cell is several times more improbable.

This is just one example. If you also grab all the other shared genetic features, and use the same logic, then the "ark" only require a single population of primitive prokaryotes which is then the ancestor of all species.

It is not the same. It can be seen that offspring is not identical to their parents, there are variations in between certain limits. For example the color and size of people can vary, similarly as with all living things. But we don't see for example mouse turning into a mini whale, which should be possible, if the evolution theory is correct. This is why I can believe there was for example one kind of bears and all modern bear "species" are offspring of those.

 

[1213]

So you are including us as apes since we have the same exact gene broken in the same exact spot,.

No. If we believe that claim is true, it is possible the same thing has happened to humans and apes, causing similar effect. It is no proof for same parent.

 

[1213]

No, limestones contain coral reefs and many ocean animals that could not form as described above. Present coral reefs of the Pacific are thousands of feet of coral.

How do you think the layers was then formed? Please show also one example where you can see this?

 

[1213]

You don't know how limestone is formed, do you?

I think there are several ways for it to happen.

No, it's not.

Why?

 

[1213]

...what would be the reasonable definition of a species that would suit you?

For me any definition that is logical is ok. In this case I think more important question is, what was the Biblical definition. It seems in Bible "family" is the same as nowadays "species".

 

[1213]

For example you cannot see even all of the stars in the Milky Way if the universe was only a few thousand years old. You could only see a about a tenth of just our galaxy.

Unless your assumptions of how universe was formed, or what are the measurements, is wrong.

 

[Audie]

Am I this 'one guy' you are referring to me shunyadragon?

Yes, many times in the materials cited Oxford Academic standards are indeed neutral to whether the supernatural events are true or false.

No, the neutrality of the Oxford Academic Standards does not determine whether the events are true or false.

For people who just say things
true and false has different standards.

 

[Audie]

No, limestones contain coral reefs and many ocean animals that could not form as described above. Present coral reefs of the Pacific are thousands of feet of coral.

An actual examination of data / evidence is
necessary to understanding. Our friend thunks that
making up something that serves their purpose is best.

Thimking that way the creationist college students
rent a house. They never clean up. After four years
at Bible College they move out.

The landlord finds garbage averaging two ft depth
throughout the house.

Students say it's from someone who had a party after they left.
Or maybe a flood.

Will they get their damage deposit back or will
actual examination of the strata reveal that it took
years to build this structure?
Can " flood" be disproved?

Will small claims court just argue Bible quotes
or go look at the deep rot in the floor., the moldy pizza
boxes below thd fresh ones, the date on newspapers and receipts?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

it is possible to get the same thing broken in different cases, by the same method it happened in some case.

Possible isn't good enough. We want likely. Possible is good enough for you, because you don't have likely, although you claim it anyway as below.

that all species evolved to this diversity from single cell is several times more improbable.

This is incorrect. You've got it exactly backwards in these two comments. You are content with possible for the nearly impossible, and improbable for the overwhelmingly likely.

You keep forgetting that you have no standing in scientific discussions because you know virtually no science. You might as well be arguing law with lawyers and engineering with engineers. Once they realize in about three seconds that you don't know their field, they stop listening. Yet you would offer yourself and your opinions as if your opinions were equally informed, and imply that if something doesn't convince you, it shouldn't convince any reasonable person.

And for those interested, this is what the Dunning-Kruger is - an absence of the recognition of expertise in others and a belief that his opinions are as good as any opinion because after all, they're all just guesses like his anyway.

we don't see for example mouse turning into a mini whale, which should be possible, if the evolution theory is correct.

It is possible, but only if every step in the transformation occurs and is selected for by nature over geological time, which was and remains exceedingly unlikely.

Possible is not good enough to justify belief. We're interested in the actual. Possible refers to everything not known to be impossible at this time, most of which never obtains, and some of which will be shown to be impossible later.

It's perfectly fine with me that you hold these beliefs. I have no incentive to do battle with a faith-based confirmation bias. That's a fool's errand. I just like rebutting fallacies. I like sharing ideas like these with like-minded people who might understand and benefit from them, which is seldom the person I'm addressing in rebuttal. I understand that this post will have no impact on you, so I need another reason to write it, don't I?

Or do you disagree?

 

[blü 2]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

You may be aware that evidence points to all human females having mitochondria from a single ancestor nicknames Mitochondrial Eve, who lived about 150,000 years ago (plus or minus quite a lot) and that the male equivalent, called Y-chromosomal Adam, about 200,000 years ago (again +/-).

So to take the nicknames seriously just for fun, Adam had been dead for 50,000 years (+/-) before Eve came along. Perhaps her mate had some name meaning McAdam ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no heat problem, because there was lot of water to cool things down. If you disagree, please explain why do you think there was a problem.

You really have no clue. Your claims generate more heat than there is water. You keep killing Noah.