Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[1213]

How could you possibly derive that from scripture?

Bible doesn't tell anything that indicates drifting of continents, which also is not probable, if we understand basic physics.

 

[1213]

Can you answer this question: Is it a serious sin for someone to call God a liar?

I think it is wrong to call anyone liar, if the person is not liar. God is not liar and I have in no way called him liar.

 

[1213]

It takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of years for limestone and coral to form layers hundreds of feet thick as Calcium and Magnesium Carbonate Precipitate Deposits.

Sorry, I have no good reason to believe that it is so always.

 

[1213]

Why on earth would you turn to the Bible for your scientific information?????

In this case, I think it would be good to understand, what was the Biblical definition for the word, otherwise it is not possible to understand it correctly. When Bible was written, modern definition didn't exist, therefore modern definition is not necessary correct, if we want to understand what Bible is saying.

 

[1213]

Ah, I see the problem here. You seem to have attended the Kent Hovind school of evolution lies.
The guy is not a scientist and has no idea what he's talking about. And on top of that, he's a fraud and a liar.

The dude has no idea what he's talking about. You should go read the work of some actual scientists.

Sorry, Ad hominem's don't work. Only way to win is to give a good reasonable explanation and proof for your claims, if you want to win.

 

[1213]

Okay, so you actually believe in a super-fast version of evolution?

I wouldn't call it evolution that offspring is not identical. Differences in the outlook of offspring doesn't mean new species to me, as we don't call for example "white" and "black" people different species, even though there is a difference in color.

 

[1213]

The science of continental drift is based on vast objective verifiable evidence. Please provide academic science references that confirm your view. Hint there are none.

People can make all kind of claims on basis of objective verifiable evidence, that doesn't make them necessary true.

Limestone takes hundreds of thousands of years to form at minimum in shallow oceans ALL over the world. Nothing above makes any sense. The strata limestones are in are thousands of feet thick and no evidence of a world flood.. Please provide academic science references that confirm your view. Hint there are none.

If it doesn't make sense to you, how do you know it is not true? You would have to understand it before you can tell it is not true.

But, I think in this case the burden of proof is on you and you can't shift it to people who just don't accept your claims without proper proof.

The Mid-Atlantic Ridge is evidence of continental drift. The rate of continental drift is happening today at the measured rate that can be seen in the ocean floor for millions of years.

If there is small movements today, it is no proof they have moved millions of years.

 

[1213]

All I can tell you is that the idea that all bears share an ancestor only a few millenia ago is beyond prepostrous.

Why? Change of color and size seems to vary in very short time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it is wrong to call anyone liar, if the person is not liar. God is not liar and I have in no way called him liar.

You have though. You just refuse to learn how you have done so. I can only offer education. I cannot force you to learn.

 

[1213]

Like for example if you claim that radiometric dating is incorrect.
What you are then ALSO saying, is that we don't understand how atoms work, so really you are saying atomic theory is wrong.

No. If the problem is in the assumption what were the original conditions, it may be that the method itself is correct, just the assumption of what was the original state is not correct. It doesn't revoke the whole principle, even though it also could be wrong in some way.

If you claim that the geological column didn't form over millions / billions of years of erosion and sediment deposits, then you are calling into question loads of things in the entire field of geology.

Also that is not true.

If you claim evolution is incorrect, then you call into question our understanding of genetics. Evolution is the backbone of modern biology. Evolution being wrong has ramification throughout the entire field.

Genetics can be in many ways correct, even if evolution theory is not true.

But, this is almost funny how "science" believers sound like religious fundamentalists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, Ad hominem's don't work. Only way to win is to give a good reasonable explanation and proof for your claims, if you want to win.

That was not an ad hominem. His post was factual. And your demand for evidence appears to be disingenuous. So far you have resisted offers to help you to learn. Right now you lack the knowledge to be able to judge if evidence was provided for you. You cannot demand evidence while refusing to learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. If the problem is in the assumption what were the original conditions, it may be that the method itself is correct, just the assumption of what was the original state is not correct. It doesn't revoke the whole principle, even though it also could be wrong in some way.

How would you know? You need to be able to demonstrate that his "assumptions" are unreasonable or wrong. Using the word "assumption" is not a refutation. It is a claim that puts the burden of proof upon you.

Also that is not true.

Genetics can be in many ways correct, even if evolution theory is not true.

Okay, prove it. You do not seem to understand the burden of proof.

But, this is almost funny how "science" believers sound like religious fundamentalists.

They only sound that way to the willfully ignorant. Are you ready to learn yet?

 

[exchemist]

Bible doesn't tell anything that indicates drifting of continents, which also is not probable, if we understand basic physics.

Do you really suppose geophysicists don't know their physics?

 

[exchemist]

Sorry, I have no good reason to believe that it is so always.

Yes you do. You have just chosen to ignore it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why? Change of color and size seems to vary in very short time.

If you think that the only difference between the American black bear, the Asiatic black bear, the brown bear, the giant panda, the polar bear, the sloth bear, the spectacled bear and the sun bear is merely the color of the fur and the size.... what can I say....

I can only advice you to read up a bit.
This belief of yours is absurd. Clearly you have no clue what you are talking about.
It's almost like you are making it all up on the spot. Almost.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No.

Yes.

If the problem is in the assumption what were the original conditions, it may be that the method itself is correct, just the assumption of what was the original state is not correct.

Statements like that only show further how ignorant you are about the subjects you are hellbend on arguing against.
It just further confirms that the ONLY real reason you have to argue against them is just that it disagrees with your a priori religious beliefs.
That's it.

Also that is not true.

It is. We have a geologist here with over 50 years of experience in the field. It's @shunyadragon
Ask him.

Genetics can be in many ways correct, even if evolution theory is not true.

If our understanding of genetics is correct, then evolution occured.
If evolution is wrong, then our understanding of genetics is wrong.

Can't have it both ways.

If you actually had some basic knowledge of genetics and evolution 101, you'ld understand this.
Every statement you make on these subjects just demonstrates further that you have no clue what you are talking about.

But, this is almost funny how "science" believers sound like religious fundamentalists.

What is funny is how religious fundamentalists like yourself think you score points by calling people with a basic understanding of science as being like religious fundamentalists, as if you recognize that that is a bad thing.

That's what's funny.

 

[metis]

Bible doesn't tell anything that indicates drifting of continents, which also is not probable, if we understand basic physics.

The Bible doesn't say anything about toilet paper either.

Anyhow, here: Plate tectonics - Wikipedia

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have no good reason to believe continents drift.

No, you don't, and that's by design. You've chosen faith as your path to truth. I do have a good reason to believe continents drift, but I've chosen a different method for deciding which ideas to believe, which shows me what you can't see.

Mid Atlantic ridge appears to be the main point where the cracks to original continent formed.

If you understood that phenomenon, you'd have your reason to believe that continents drift. That's where two plates are moving apart. But that's not for you to know if you won't study scientific resources.

I don't see any reason to think, if someone is wrong in some thing, it means everything they say is wrong.

You don't like the way evolutionary scientists and geologists evaluate evidence, meaning that you're challenging the scientific method. If you're correct that it's flawed, all of its fruit is poisoned.

I don't see how you can believe in evolution theory.

Yes, of course you don't. You don't have the necessary background or temperament to see that.

Bible doesn't tell anything that indicates drifting of continents, which also is not probable, if we understand basic physics.

You don't understand basic physics. Perhaps you should stop mixing magisteria. You believe what you believe by faith, not physics. I give you the former, but not the latter. Stay in your own lane. If you start invoking things like reason and evidence, you'll need to be accurate or expect a correction.

I think it would be good to understand, what was the Biblical definition for the word, otherwise it is not possible to understand it correctly. When Bible was written, modern definition didn't exist, therefore modern definition is not necessary correct, if we want to understand what Bible is saying.

None of those words have any fixed meaning. Because its language is vague, the Bible is a verbal Rorschach test. The words mean whatever any reader brings to the reading, and doctrine is chosen like entries in a cafeteria according to taste. Does the friendly New Testament demigod resonate with you, or maybe its the angry strongman deity of the Old. Is a "yom" a literal day or an age? Whatever the believer needs it to be.

If it doesn't make sense to you, how do you know it is not true? You would have to understand it before you can tell it is not true.

When someone says something doesn't make sense, they're not calling it true or untrue, but incomprehensible or incoherent.

the burden of proof is on you and you can't shift it to people who just don't accept your claims without proper proof.

There is no burden of "proof" with anybody that isn't a critical thinker, who isn't prepared to evaluate an evidenced argument for soundness. There is no duty to convince where there is no possibility of it.

If there is small movements today, it is no proof they have moved millions of years.

It's compelling evidence that they have moved for as long as there have been tectonic plates, which is measured in the billions of years, but not for the unprepared mind.

You keep saying, "I don't see it" as if that should be meaningful to others. It's not beyond meaning that you're unable to evaluate evidence rationally.

this is almost funny how "science" believers sound like religious fundamentalists.

Why would they sound different to you? To someone with daltonism, red looks like green. So what?

 

[shunyadragon]

People can make all kind of claims on basis of objective verifiable evidence, that doesn't make them necessary true.

When you make claims concerning the nature of our physical existence objectively verifiable evidence is absolutely necessary. The severe problem remains you make outragious statements based on an ancient religious agenda that is totally contrary to the evidence.

If it doesn't make sense to you, how do you know it is not true? You would have to understand it before you can tell it is not true.

Science is not what makes sense to you or me. I know your claims are outrageously false, beause the contradict the evidence, and you have absolutely no knowledge of the science involved.

But, I think in this case the burden of proof is on you and you can't shift it to people who just don't accept your claims without proper proof.

The proper objectively verifiable evidence has been presented in detail. For example the origin of hundreds of feet of limestone and coral reefs that formed and are forming today. You have presented nothing in terms of science to remotely defend your claims.

Still waiting . . .

If there is small movements today, it is no proof they have moved millions of years.

The small movements today match the billions of years of the history of the Earth inch by inch and day by day.

As usual, your terrible intentional ignorance of science misuses the concept of proof, and you fail to offer and scientific reference whatsoever.

Please respond to the points in post #2 of this thread that trashed your argument beyond repair.

Again . . .

What are your qualifications in science to support your outrageous claims?

Scientific references please to support your arguments!

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, I have no good reason to believe that it is so always.

High School level Physics supports my statements. Please respond with scientific references to support your outrageous claims.