Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[exchemist]

That is the reason why I think evolution theory, or the idea of all species coming from single life form is pseudoscience and nothing more than modern mother earth cult.

Then you don't understand either science or the theory of evolution. It is based on observations and has made a huge number of successful predictions of what further observations should be expected.

However, as you seem to be one of those determined not to understand it, there is probably little point explaining why you are wrong.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Some could say miracles could be random chance and that God does not sweat the small stuff.

Miracles as described in the Bible, however, don't fit that description.

There's nothing random about a person coming back to life after being dead for three days.

Either way it is not evidence against or for the existence of God. From God's perspective it would be damned if you do damned if you don't. Which in hindsight would prove why earlier in the Bible God was more involved and as to why now he would take a more subtle or distant approach. It kind of reminds me of a parent and his children. In which you have to have a strong hand in the beginning to instill proper values and discipline. But, as they grow older you step back and let them make their own mistakes.

The problem with that analogy is that there's nothing in Christian theology that indicates we're any more spiritually mature now than we were back then. God's apparently abrupt halt on "miracles" is not so easily explained.

 

[GardenLady]

But, the evidence is evidence for evolution only if one has faith to those who claim it is so.

No. This comment demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of scientific evidence. If Scientist A presents evidence for something, then Scientists B, C, D, etc., will conduct research to replicate or counter those findings. As has been stated here over and over and over again, there is a mountain of evidence, from thousands of different sources, to support the theory of evolution. It is not faith or religion, and ignorance of the scientific method does not render it to be faith or religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is the reason why I think evolution theory, or the idea of all species coming from single life form is pseudoscience and nothing more than modern mother earth cult.

Then you have to be extremely ignorant because all of the observations that support evolution are repeatable.

 

[metis]

That is the reason why I think evolution theory, or the idea of all species coming from single life form is pseudoscience and nothing more than modern mother earth cult.

The former has been well established but not the latter, as abiogenesis is only a hypothesis.

 

[1213]

The former has been well established but not the latter, as abiogenesis is only a hypothesis.

Sorry, I didn't mean abiogenesis with that. I meant, evolution can mean macro- or microevolution. I think macroevolution is pseudoscience. Some may use the word evolution for microevolution, meaning there are small changes in offspring of lifeforms. Microevolution could maybe be possible and observed and it could be called scientific.

 

[1213]

Then you have to be extremely ignorant because all of the observations that support evolution are repeatable.

Please give one example?

 

[Kevin Armstrong]

That is the trap of literalism. If Jesus saves us from sin, when did sin begin? The Fall of man in the Garden. But that is clearly a myth, so at what point does the doctrine go from being myth to reality? I suggest all of it, including the Jesus bits, be interpreted symbolically and not literally at all. The only way any of it can make sense is by avoiding literalism. But, Christianity is a business, and they are in the business of getting believers do what they want, including giving money.

Literalism demands it. That is why the dogma is faulty and confuses most Christians.

Reading your posts I was getting the sense you were sushi chef. I could be wrong about that.

Why do you want to go back there?

I assume the sushi chef remark is not a compliment? Why do I seek faith again? I think it's part age-related and part a desire to understand what life/death are all about. Quite recently I have lived in Argentina and Spain and saw aspects of religion that were interesting and disturbing in equal measure. I took a few years to decide that there was nothing to lose in believing ( a bit of Pascal's wager) and when I looked at RC, I found a lot that appealed to me....the music, the ritual, the use of silence. I put to one side the money making aspects but I've become increasingly alarmed by the acceptance of Covid, Climate rubbish and a wonky view of the Ukraine situation.

 

[F1fan]

Sorry, I didn't mean abiogenesis with that. I meant, evolution can mean macro- or microevolution. I think macroevolution is pseudoscience. Some may use the word evolution for microevolution, meaning there are small changes in offspring of lifeforms. Microevolution could maybe be possible and observed and it could be called scientific.

There is no difference in evolution. The macro/micro differnce you cite is something creations invented because they couldn't account for the massive numebr of species and the Noah Ark myth be interpreted literally. And you don't show any understanding of the science so what makes you think you can make a judgment about evolution at all? So experts in biology are wrong, and you without a basic 7th grade understanding is correct? Is this what christianity teaches it's people, to get science wrong and avoid humility?

 

[F1fan]

I assume the sushi chef remark is not a compliment?

You don't like sushi?

Why do I seek faith again? I think it's part age-related and part a desire to understand what life/death are all about.

Fear is a huge motivation for those seeking religion. Could it be that you are afraid and want to adopt some religious framework that offers an escape? Do you not fear that the religion is wrong? Do you not fear wasting your last few years on an illusion?

What if you spent time learning to not be fearful instead?

Quite recently I have lived in Argentina and Spain and saw aspects of religion that were interesting and disturbing in equal measure. I took a few years to decide that there was nothing to lose in believing ( a bit of Pascal's wager) and when I looked at RC, I found a lot that appealed to me....the music, the ritual, the use of silence. I put to one side the money making aspects but I've become increasingly alarmed by the acceptance of Covid, Climate rubbish and a wonky view of the Ukraine situation.

Are you saying that you doubt Covid is real? And are you a climate denier? And what is wonky about Ukraine defending itself against a world adversary?

 

[Audie]

No. This comment demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of scientific evidence. If Scientist A presents evidence for something, then Scientists B, C, D, etc., will conduct research to replicate or counter those findings. As has been stated here over and over and over again, there is a mountain of evidence, from thousands of different sources, to support the theory of evolution. It is not faith or religion, and ignorance of the scientific method does not render it to be faith or religion.

It's also a "you are just like us",
which has some amusing layers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please give one example?

When a new fossil is found that fossil is an example of evidence. It is not just analyzed by the person that found it. The fossil can be observed again and again by others. That is an example of repeatable evidence. You may remember Java Man. That was the first Homo erectus fossil ever found. There was a lot of skepticism about it since the discoverer found only a thigh bone and a skull cap. But that find was available for others to observe and confirm. It was human. It was not Homo sapiens. The differences were there and were significant. When others were found that made it repeatable in another way. Experts could see that the thighs of others matched and that the skull cap matched the complete skulls found later.

Fossil finds are an example of repeatable evidence because others can observe them and confirm or refute the claims of those that first published their findings. Frauds and misidentifications can be found that way too. Archaeoraptor was a fake that fooled an employee of National Geographic. He bought the fossil and rather than running the find through peer review the magazine published the find themselves. From the photographs of it experts were able to observe it and refute it.Nebraska Man is another example. It was not a fraud. It was a misidentification. The observations of it enabled others to properly identify it.

Finds can be confirmed or refuted because the observations of them are repeatable. No one accepts a find just on the say so of the discoverer.

 

[metis]

I think macroevolution is pseudoscience.

And why would you believe that? Are you a biologist? an anthropologist? what?

"Macroevolution" is just plain old common sense: all material objects tend to change over time and genes are material objects. Add micro after micro after... and you get macro, and you get even more just plain old common sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I didn't mean abiogenesis with that. I meant, evolution can mean macro- or microevolution. I think macroevolution is pseudoscience. Some may use the word evolution for microevolution, meaning there are small changes in offspring of lifeforms. Microevolution could maybe be possible and observed and it could be called scientific.

Macroevolution has been directly observed in the lab and in the field. You probably accept the fact of macroevolution.

Here is a hint, do not use scientific terms that you do not understand.

 

[1213]

Macroevolution has been directly observed in the lab and in the field.

Please give one example.

 

[1213]

And why would you believe that? Are you a biologist? an anthropologist? what?

I think your should not believe things just because someone is a biologist, or an anthropologist.

 

[1213]

When a new fossil is found that fossil is an example of evidence.

Yes, I agree, it is evidence for something.

It is not just analyzed by the person that found it. The fossil can be observed again and again by others. That is an example of repeatable evidence. You may remember Java Man. That was the first Homo erectus fossil ever found. There was a lot of skepticism about it since the discoverer found only a thigh bone and a skull cap. But that find was available for others to observe and confirm. It was human. It was not Homo sapiens. The differences were there and were significant.

Would be nice to know what are the actual differences. I am sure, if you would line up all modern human sculls, you could make same claim that some of them are different species.

 

[1213]

There is no difference in evolution. The macro/micro differnce you cite is something creations invented because they couldn't account for the massive numebr of species and the Noah Ark myth be interpreted literally.

Ok, the point is, if you call evolution that your kids are not identical with you, then it could be accepted idea. If evolution means for example that a whale was originally a land animal, but evolved to the current form by the mechanisms of evolution, then it is pseudo scientific belief.

I don't think there is really massive number of species, if they would be defined reasonably.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please give one example.

I will begin with one in the lab. The Long Term E. coli experiment has generated a new species of E .coli.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, the point is, if you call evolution that your kids are not identical with you, then it could be accepted idea. If evolution means for example that a whale was originally a land animal, but evolved to the current form by the mechanisms of evolution, then it is pseudo scientific belief.

I don't think there is really massive number of species, if they would be defined reasonably.

Then you appear to be unreasonable