DID FOSSILS MAKE YOU DOUBT?

by badboy 52 Replies latest jw friends

  • gaiagirl
    gaiagirl

    from the CNS archives that explains Catholic church teaching on evolution. In a message to international scientists in 1996, Pope John Paul II said the church accepts evolution as a theory well-supported by research in a variety of scientific fields. At the same time, though, the pope said that the development of the spiritual aspect of human life cannot be explained identifically. In a statement to the plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pontiff said there was meaning in the fact that several scientific disciplines had come up with evidence of evolution independent of one another. The pope noted that he was not the first pontiff to state that science and church can find points of agreement in this area. For example, he said, Pope Pius XII wrote in a 1950 encyclical that there was no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith, as long as there were certain firm points of faith where no concession can be made. "Today, nearly half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis," Pope John Paul said. Charles Darwin introduced evolutionary theory in the 19th century with his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. The book and its adherents met with stark opposition from the church at the outset. But this tension has gradually eased with the refinement of evolutionary concepts and modified biblical studies from the late 19th century onward. At a June 1966 symposium, co-sponsored by the Vatican Observatory and encouraged by the pope, participants suggested that to view the development of human life in terms of an "ongoing creation" is a scenario that makes increasing sense, scientifically and theologically. In his statement, Pope John Paul explained that it is in the church's interest to develop its scientific knowledge. "In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications gives rise to new questions," he said. "The church can understand its importance all the better by recognizing its essential aspects." COPYRIGHT 1999 National Catholic Reporter

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Greendawn said, It will be a big day when the evolutionists find a reptilian scale in the process of becoming a feather or the species that bridge the gap between a wolf like creature (ancestor of the whale) and the fish like creature that is the whale. It's a massive transformation in anatomy don't you think?

    Haven't yet read anything suggested to you yet have you. These two examples in fact have been demonstrated in repeated experimentation as well as fossil evidence. Protofeathers and feathers are found in a number of fossil genera: Feathered dinosaurs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Feathers and scutes and scales are all structures based upon the same genetic template the differences resulting from the presence or absence of proteins. Feathers can be coaxed to form where scales and scutes by the simple introduction of a virus that suppressed the controller protein. If you ever raised chickens you may have learned of varieties where the legs and feet are covered in feathers rather than scales. This happens in the wild as well. The relationship of feathers with keratin scales/scutes is not in question.

    As far as the evolution of whales from land mammels, this also has been rather well established. Modern whales have vestigial hind limbs, pelvis, ofactory organs and ear canals among many many other things that give clear evidence they came from land animals. On occassion a whale is even found with hind legs protruding. Fossil finds have captured glimpses into the stages this evolution took. Evolution -- Land-to-Sea Transitional Series

  • skeptic2
    skeptic2

    GREENDAWN:

    If you want to know more about whale evolution and transitional fossils, you might want to look into these species:

    If you want to know about human evolution over the last 3 million years and transitional fossils, you might want to look into these species (ignore modern chimpanzee skull at the start), fossils are in date order from 3 million year old B:

    Although I assume in your view, these species parachuted onto the earth fully formed and immediately went about their business?

    In addition ALL mainstream Christian religions oppose evolution and the fossil record actually disproves the evolution theory by failing to provide any of the millions of conjectured inbetween species that bridge the gap between relatively similar species that are actually present in the fossil record, alas in it we find species appearing suddenly and fully formed without evolutionary ancestors. Here the creationists are not misleading anyone.

    Yes they are, please see above for just two species. What you have said is an outright lie. As bad as the Awake dinosaurs article which stated that dinoaurs were unrelated to species coming before or after - this was also an outright lie.

    It will be a big day when the evolutionists find a reptilian scale in the process of becoming a feather or the species that bridge the gap between a wolf like creature (ancestor of the whale) and the fish like creature that is the whale. It's a massive transformation in anatomy don't you think? A wolf becoming a fish, long after a fish decided to become a wolf.

    Please see earlier posts and links.

    As for a 20 million in one chance that's nothing compared to the odds of life developing out of inanimate matter.

    What is the probability of your God appearing out of inanimate matter, or even no matter, as it must have? But it happened eh? You of all people should have the least trouble with the probabilities of abiogenesis, which in fact cannot be calculated in any meaningful way. But we dont need to calculate it in a meaningful way. We just know that it did happen, because we ae here. If you believe a sky-god came down and started life, thats up to you, but that is much less likely (by an infinite factor) than the simple chemical reactions we can assume started the process.

    Anyway you're talking about abiogenesis (the origin of life) - which is entirely outside of the scope of evolutionary theory. Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life, it is a well-tested explanation for how life on Earth got from that early starting point to now, based on all the evidence we have.

    I'm sure that your misunderstandings of evolution would be quickly put to bed if you throw out your preconceptions and do a little research.

    I think the outright lies of creationists (some of which we see above) must only exist because some Christians have realized that they can use this argument in order to further their political and monetary aspirations. I can't think of any other reason why people would be so disingenous, they can't all be so sorely misguided.

  • badboy
    badboy

    THANKS EVERYONE FOR YOUR REPLIES!

  • Moomin
    Moomin

    When my husband (skeptic2) would show me fossils, tools used by humans much longer past than 6k years etc., I would get very angry because I knew I couldn't believe it as it went against the teachings of the wt. I had nothing I could say in reply and nothing I could back up my views with. I would end up saying stupid things like 'Satan did it' and then storm off in a huff. So maybe they did make me doubt but I tried to deny it and the pretense made me angry. If I was so certain that I had the truth, I'm sure there would have been no need for anger or arguments, I would have calmly and politely disagreed and continued on in my beliefs unaffected.

  • skeptic2
    skeptic2

    If you want to further investigate transitional fossils, but the whale or human examples I've posted don't take your fancy, this Talk Origins page is a fairly comprehensive list:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

  • badboy
    badboy

    BTTT

  • greendawn
    greendawn

    Peacefulpete, Skeptic 2, I will be replying to your posts but it will take some research on my part to cover all the points you raised, these are interesting challenges transitional fossils, feathered dinosaurs, whale and human ancestry.

    All I have to say now is that scales and feathers are made of the same material, a protein called keratin, but structurally they are a world apart.

    Gaia still the fact remains that the pope believes in a God possibly directing evolution and infusing a soul in man, he was not an atheist. That's why Dick Dawkins had him criticised.

    http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

    "Dawkins contends that evolution tells us that there is no ?great gulf between Homo sapiens and the rest of the animal kingdom.? The Pope?s insistence to the contrary is, in the biologist?s opinion, ?an antievolutionary intrusion into the domain of science.?

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

    No . Because I still have a faith in a god, and my way of thinking cannot get a handle on a purely secular answer to the question of of our origins, and I see no need either to have to accept a literal teaching of the Genesis account.

    I guess that this thread was inspired by the publicity given to the finding of remains of a juvenile Australopithecus afarensis . That is interesting. I will appreciate any further information following the detailed examination. I note from the National Geographic website that Australopithecus afarensis is described as an "ape", albeit with some human looking skeletal features.

    I object, therefore, to the media calling this simian fossil a "baby girl", "toddler", "young girl" "ancient child". I believe that this is just as misleading as some of the things creationists say

  • badboy
    badboy

    BUT THEIR HAS BEEN A DETAILED EXAMINATION!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit