Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[Audie]

Oh I see. Yes, you can hypothesise that God could have made things look similar - humans with DNA more similar to a fish than to a banana, say, just as He could have put the fossils in the rocks to fool the palaeontologists and constructed layers of rock with different apparent radiometric ages, and magnetic stripes in the sea floor, to fool the physicists.

However science, which operates on the basis of seeking explanations of nature in nature itself, finds these things can be accounted for pretty well without needing to invoke supernatural tinkering. As the methodology of science has been highly successful to date, those of us with a science education place a fair degree of trust in its explanations. That does not rule out a creator, but it does suggest that if there is one he is not a tinkerer.

At least its admission that the evidence is
real and all points away from " goddidit".

 

[Subduction Zone]

If there is not good reason to accept the evidence supports your claims, it is not useful.

Okay, so you are saying that this does not apply to evolution since there are many good reasons accept the evidence.

But even if that was not true you would still be wrong. Reliable evidence is objective and not subjective. Scientific evidence is almost always objective. Objective evidence exists whether one likes it or not.

 

[1213]

Reliable evidence is objective and not subjective.

I agree with that. But, the problem is, real evidence can be also for something else than what you think it is.

 

[1213]

...can be quite precise, down to centimetres. ...

How long we have measured that with satellites and how much has the height changed in that time?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree with that. But, the problem is, real evidence can be also for something else than what you think it is.

How would you know? You refuse to even learn what is and what is not evidence. That means that you could be right, you could be wrong. Your opinion is of no value because you choose to be ignorant.

 

[Muffled]

I'm not blind, though you, my friend,
are uneducated.

I believe that serves not as blindness but just lack of information on your part. I have BS in Management Information Systems.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe that serves not as blindness but just lack of information on your part. I have BS in Management Information Systems.

IOW you got your degree in something that was practical, rather than getting a good general education. This means there are many things you are not educated in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe that serves not as blindness but just lack of information on your part. I have BS in Management Information Systems.

No, you do not. You have a belief in myths that are demonstrably wrong. But almost all creationists are cowards and refuse to learn how they are wrong. Are you willing to learn?

 

[Audie]

I believe that serves not as blindness but just lack of information on your part. I have BS in Management Information Systems.

Terrif.

That should make you a good
jet pilot.

You have less than no education in science.

 

[urantianX]

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.

Hey, Kevin and Everyone!:
i'm a veteran in the URANTIA community of students (a Mexican 39-year-old)...
URANTIA says Adam and Eve arrived on our world (named Urantia), quote, 'from the year A.D. 1934, 37,848 years ago'.
and guess what:
our science confirmed a few decades ago the approximate almost exact period of arrival for Adam and Eve, as given by the URANTIA revelators back in 1955, the year of publication of URANTIA.
where is that historical confirmation by the URANTIA revelation?, here on this independent URANTIA-related website, with the scientific info and all:

UBtheNEWS: Adam and Eve Report – Urantia Book Study Aids

UBannotated.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey, Kevin and Everyone!:
i'm a veteran in the URANTIA community of students (a Mexican 39-year-old)...
URANTIA says Adam and Eve arrived on our world (named Urantia), quote, 'from the year A.D. 1934, 37,848 years ago'.
and guess what:
our science confirmed a few decades ago the approximate almost exact period of arrival for Adam and Eve, as given by the URANTIA revelators back in 1955, the year of publication of URANTIA.
where is that historical confirmation by the URANTIA revelation?, here on this independent URANTIA-related website, with the scientific info and all:

UBtheNEWS: Adam and Eve Report – Urantia Book Study Aids

UBannotated.com

Your "science" may have done that. What does the actual science say?

 

[urantianX]

Your "science" may have done that. What does the actual science say?

not only what i already shared above, but also this:

From Ann Gauger and Ola Hössjer, a New Standard for the Science of a “First Couple” | Evolution News

Their scrupulous work found that Jerry Coyne and others, in bullying Christians and Jews on how “we can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty,” were in reality poorly supported.

evolutionnews.org

(oct 29, 2019)
this site is from the actual pioneers of the modern and post-modern Intelligent Design scientific theory. ...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The point is, if there are similarities, it does not necessary mean it is because of same ancestry. It is as well possible God created everything with similar principles, which is why it may look like they are related.

Are you saying that you believe God deliberately made things look related to fool people?

 

[Subduction Zone]

not only what i already shared above, but also this:

From Ann Gauger and Ola Hössjer, a New Standard for the Science of a “First Couple” | Evolution News

Their scrupulous work found that Jerry Coyne and others, in bullying Christians and Jews on how “we can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty,” were in reality poorly supported.

evolutionnews.org

(oct 29, 2019)
this site is from the actual pioneers of the modern and post-modern Intelligent Design scientific theory. ...

LOL! Sorry, you cannot use a pseudoscience source to defend attempted scientific claims. You might s well admit that you are wrong.

 

[urantianX]

LOL! Sorry, you cannot use a pseudoscience source to defend attempted scientific claims. You might s well admit that you are wrong.

oh yeah whatever you say whatever you say whatever you say Subduction Zone; i as well admit i am right, not wrong at all whatsoever k?...

 

[Subduction Zone]

oh yeah whatever you say whatever you say whatever you say Subduction Zone; i as well admit i am right, not wrong at all whatsoever k?...

Do you not know that is a total garbage site? It is an offshoot of the Discovery Institute. The dishonest organization that was exposed in the Dover trial. That is not a valid source. It is not scientific at all.

Now you may be able to go there for ideas, but to be taken seriously you need to find support in the primary literature. But once a site is shown to be dishonest no rational person will accept what they say after that.

 

[urantianX]

you are the one actually being dishonest, buddy; example:

Ten Myths About Dover: #1, "Judge Jones Addressed the Actual Theory of ID, Not a Straw Man" | Evolution News

Contrary to what you hear from the media, from evolution activists, and from Darwin defenders in academia, ID's big day in court has not yet come.

evolutionnews.org

for much more on 'the dover trial' go here, friends:

Search Results for “dover” | Evolution News

evolutionnews.org

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please give some real observable difference, like for example different color, size....

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria, insecticide resistance in insects, herbicide resistance in plants, the ability of a bacteria to use a manmade polymer, nylon, as a substrate, domesticated plants and animals, ring species, the ability to utilize manmade glyphosate as a substrate by bacteria, hybrid speciation through ploidy in plants as illustrated by goatsbeard, the cichlid superflock of Lake Victoria in Africa, lactase persistence in human populations, the ice nculeating protein of nototheniod fish of Antacrtica, the E. coli in the Lenski experiment, mice in Hoekstra and Barrett's field study in Nebraska...

Would you like me to go on? The evidence you appear to deny or try to wish away into the cornfield is voluminous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you are the one actually being dishonest, buddy; example:

Ten Myths About Dover: #1, "Judge Jones Addressed the Actual Theory of ID, Not a Straw Man" | Evolution News

Contrary to what you hear from the media, from evolution activists, and from Darwin defenders in academia, ID's big day in court has not yet come.

evolutionnews.org

for much more on 'the dover trial' go here, friends:

Search Results for “dover” | Evolution News

evolutionnews.org

LMAO!! You are trying to use a lying source to defend a lying source. Do you not see the problem with that?

 

[urantianX]

LMAO!! You are trying to use a lying source to defend a lying source. Do you not see the problem with that?

lmaooo: you just dont know what else to say anymore!!!