or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ? - Page 5

post #81 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
Sorry for the head banging Stacy, I suppose it was over the top. It wasn't directed at you though.

I was just posting a simple example of evolution in action on a scale that we can all see, not over a long time fossil record, where species evolve into seperate species, by the definition of not being able to breed, that is.(IME some ID-ers don't believe in the timescales of millions of years, so I was just hilighting something on a timescale even a strict YEC or IDer can appreciate)



Am I right in assuming you are meaning micro versus macro- evolution? (like the word "kind" this idea is also something that is the invention of ID, not a real biological idea) You should know this though (Stacy) your degree is in Biology? So I'm not sure.

OK, so let me understand then, you want a succession of fossil records showing one thing evolving into something else? How will I know if it a different "kind", you want one kind --> a different kind, but how, since it isn't a real scientific distinction, how will I know if my examples are different kinds? Since it is a made up term, you could just keep saying, oh those are the same kind, YK? But I will find and link to a sucession, a good one hopefully. Some are a pain to read and don't have good pics and I doubt people would take the time to actually read them (don't blame anyone, some are boring!) I'll just do my best.
Yes, good points, I guess you have to strictly definine the terminology more preciesly in order to understand one another for this particular argument.

So, for the sake of argument, let's use the word "breed" instead of "species" when speaking of the different KINDS of an animal. Make sense? So, let's say, a gull, or a hummingbird, or a chicken are all birds, but they are different "breeds" of birds.

And again, for the sake of argument, let's say the term "species" applies to a particular group of animals, that may have many variations of "breed," but they are all the same "species," that is, birds.

In other words, under this definition of terms, the question of whether or not one breed of bird can or cannot mate successfully with another breed of bird is not evidence for evolution, as it is certainly shown that not all bird breeds can mate with each other.

Now, under this definition, nowhere is there evidence of any species of animal mutating or changing in any way to become another species of animal. Yes, the species can certainly become other breeds, but nowhere is it seen to become another species altogether. (e.g. bird to mammal, etc. as in my example).
post #82 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa View Post
I'm really curious how some people claim things are or are not Catholic when the Vatican says otherwise.
The Vatican can state anything they want to, and it is merely opinion unless it is defined as binding for Catholics to believe. Nowhere is evolution part of Tradition, nor Scripture - nowhere.

The Pope is a man stained with Original Sin as all of us are and is perfectly capable of making an error in judgment in supporting the notion of evolution. He is incapable of making an error in judgment when teaching on faith and morals when he speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair) as he has the protection of the Holy Ghost, and this has not been done since one occasion in 1950! He has no such protection when merely offering his opinion on a topic that applies neither to faith nor morals.
post #83 of 294
It is perfectly possible for a Catholic to disagree with the Church fathers on any number of topics.

Thank goodness, since it turns out we were wrong on that whole Sun moving around the Earth thing that Galileo ran into trouble on.
post #84 of 294
post #85 of 294
post #86 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
The Vatican can state anything they want to, and it is merely opinion unless it is defined as binding for Catholics to believe. Nowhere is evolution part of Tradition, nor Scripture - nowhere.

The Pope is a man stained with Original Sin as all of us are and is perfectly capable of making an error in judgment in supporting the notion of evolution. He is incapable of making an error in judgment when teaching on faith and morals when he speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair) as he has the protection of the Holy Ghost, and this has not been done since one occasion in 1950! He has no such protection when merely offering his opinion on a topic that applies neither to faith nor morals.

If you've ever wondered what the phrase "more Catholic than the Pope" meant - here's a perfect illustration (Not trying to be nasty, but it's such a classic....)

Also, Stacy is a "Traditionalist" Catholic so she is going to have a bit of a different spin on the contemporary RCC. Not that there is anything inherently "wrong" about being Traditionalist, it just illuminates where she is coming from, IMO.
post #87 of 294
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

This is one of the coolest papers IMO, not a fossil record but neat evidence of the chimp and human sharing a common ancestor.

Here is another popular article about common ancestry

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

But I'm looking for pics of fossils for Stacy. Although I am assuming you have seen all the common ones and with your dgree in Bio have probably seen alot of evidence, so I'm trying to find something that you might not have seen before.

Oh, and as an aside, Dawkins' recent book The Ancestor's Tale is a must read for anyone interested in this subject IMO.

OK, I'll start looking for the fossil pics now (do they really need to be in photo form? It would be so much easier if not...)
post #88 of 294
Quote:
We also have an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia (Carroll 1988, pp. 392-396; Futuyma 1998, pp. 146-151; Gould 1990; Kardong 2002, pp. 255-275). As mentioned above, the standard phylogenetic tree indicates that mammals gradually evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and that transitional species must have existed which were morphologically intermediate between reptiles and mammals—even though none are found living today. However, there are significant morphological differences between modern reptiles and modern mammals.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...ermediates_ex2
post #89 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
for the sake of argument, let's use the word "breed" instead of "species" when speaking of the different KINDS of an animal. Make sense? So, let's say, a gull, or a hummingbird, or a chicken are all birds, but they are different "breeds" of birds.
Please, let's not just say things for the sake of argument.
Your definition is inaccurate, false, completey made up.
So let's not "just say" that a breed is a species, when they clearly have different definitions.
Let's not just make up our own definitions in order to support our opinions.
Let's just stick to the truth.

So, going on facts:
Breeds can be seen in dogs, and cats, and horse, so let's just take one example.
Dogs: Great Danes are a different breed than dachsunds, for example.
Different breeds of a species of animal (dog) can breed with each other.

Your example with calling different species of birds 'breeds' is completely inaccurate and misinformend.
My Hahn's Macaw cannot breed with my Cockatiel.
They are not breeds of birds, they are not even breeds of parrots.
There are many different species among the family of birds, even among the sub-family of parrots.

Now, a caique (pronounced Ki-eek), which is a specific species of parrot, of the aves (bird) family, has two 'breeds' - the white bellied caique and the black capped caique.
These two breeds of Caique developed different feather coloring in the northern and southern areas of Brazil, separated by the Amazon river.
Although they have different feather coloring, they are still of the same species, that species being a Caique.
They can 'breed' with one another because they are of the same species.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
And again, for the sake of argument, let's say the term "species" applies to a particular group of animals, that may have many variations of "breed," but they are all the same "species," that is, birds.
And again, no, birds are not a species of animals, Birds are a family of animals with many species under that heading.

And with that, I have deleted the remainder of your post, because the rest of your words in that post are only conslusions gained from inaccurate information provided in the beginning of your post.
You can't create truthful conclusions from untruthful 'evidence'.
post #90 of 294

Looks like I killed this thread.
post #91 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abi's Mom View Post

Looks like I killed this thread.
No, you didn't.

I : you for that last post, thanks! I am so tired of these made up things by the ID camp. These terms and definitions are completely fiction and it makes me grumpy!
post #92 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abi's Mom View Post
Please, let's not just say things for the sake of argument.
Your definition is inaccurate, false, completey made up.
So let's not "just say" that a breed is a species, when they clearly have different definitions.
Let's not just make up our own definitions in order to support our opinions.
Let's just stick to the truth.

So, going on facts:
Breeds can be seen in dogs, and cats, and horse, so let's just take one example.
Dogs: Great Danes are a different breed than dachsunds, for example.
Different breeds of a species of animal (dog) can breed with each other.

Your example with calling different species of birds 'breeds' is completely inaccurate and misinformend.
Ok, my trying to better delineate the terms was not to be obtuse AT ALL. I am sincerely trying to explain my argument.

So, you have replaced the term with "family" which I have no objection to at all. It still demonstrates my argument, ok?

You can say there are several different "breeds" of domestic dog, for example, daschsund, Great Dane, etc. And you can agree that a wolf or a fox is a different "species" than a domesticated "breed" of dog. However, they are all still from the same family in that they are all "dogs."

The same with the previous example, per your terminology: A hummingbird, a gull, a chicken, and a parrot are different "species" of bird; and an African Grey parrot is a different "breed" of parrot than a Macaw. But, they are all still from the same "family" - birds. And yet a gull cannot breed with a hummingbird, or a chicken or a parrot.

My point being sterility of lineage is no indication of, or evidence for, evolution.

You will still NEVER see a "species" in the "family" of bird undergo a change and become a "species" in the "family" of dog.

This is the entire premise of evolution, that all creatures came from a single cell as the result of some "unidentified" accident and then morphed into the variety of distinct creatures on earth. This defies all logic.
post #93 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
No, you didn't.

I : you for that last post, thanks! I am so tired of these made up things by the ID camp. These terms and definitions are completely fiction and it makes me grumpy!

What's "the ID camp?" sorry, never heard that one before...

Please, post whatever you like - I'm game. Pictures, text, etc. I like to read!

Have you ever read any of the books I posted upthread?
post #94 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzywan View Post
If you've ever wondered what the phrase "more Catholic than the Pope" meant - here's a perfect illustration (Not trying to be nasty, but it's such a classic....)

Also, Stacy is a "Traditionalist" Catholic so she is going to have a bit of a different spin on the contemporary RCC. Not that there is anything inherently "wrong" about being Traditionalist, it just illuminates where she is coming from, IMO.
Suzy - lay off. You say you're not trying to be nasty, but then that's exactly what you are. Don't attack me and insult me just because you do not understand the DIFFERENCE between the Pope's personal opinion and his act of defining matters of dogma.

You don't see me calling you a "bad" Catholic just because you're liberal and disagree with Church teachings.
post #95 of 294
So you are saying that the POpe's opinions go against CHurch teachings, and thus, that you know Catholic doctrine better than the POpe?
post #96 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
Please demonstrate how a single cell became an organized species of any kind, by a series of random coincidences from a primordial soup and somehow magically organized itself into, say, an antelope! Or, no, hey - a frog! LOL How utterly ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
Of course what I stated is a fact. God is the Maker and Creator of all things in Heaven and on earth.
Why do you require demonstration of how single cells became antelopes when you do not require the same proof of God as creator? Because of your faith. Which is, of course, fact to you, but not to all. I promise not to call your beliefs "utterly ridiculous" if you will stop referring to others as such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
You will still NEVER see a "species" in the "family" of bird undergo a change and become a "species" in the "family" of dog.
No, but I believe that if I were to be here in a couple of million years, I'm pretty sure both dogs and birds would be very changed and much more diverse than they are now. But they would still be descendants of our contemporary birds and dogs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
This is the entire premise of evolution, that all creatures came from a single cell as the result of some "unidentified" accident and then morphed into the variety of distinct creatures on earth. This defies all logic.
No, it defies your faith, but is perfectly logical according to established scientific methodology.

I respect your faith and opinion. But please refrain from asserting your faith as "fact" to all and from calling other beliefs ridiculous and illogical.
post #97 of 294
ID= intelligent design
YEC= young earth creationists

I haven't read the books you linked. The Evolution Hoax Exposed (also known as why colleges breed communists), no I haven't read it. Though, written in 1941, it was clearly not a scientific work, but something written by a biblical literalist and not something I would normally bother spending my time reading. I might try to get it from the library next time I go, for kicks.

l olive, I agree. It almost seems pointless trying to offer scientific evidence to someone who relly doesn't accept or rely on scientific evidence anyway, it starts to get silly.

Especially the Blind Watchmaker argument brought up. Um, if life is something that clearly needs a "maker" then how does the maker, who is obviously even more complicated than the life she created, not need an even more complicated maker to have made her? Funny stuff, that is.

OK, now on to the Genesis Flood book. Um, written in 1960? I went to your link and it had all really bad reviews, even from creationists. I can tell you, even though I accept the findings of the scientific method, I am sure you could find much better more modern books on your side of the argument. Even though I disagree with him strongly, Behe has been really popular amongst creationists and they think he has scientific merit (I don't think he does, but your pickings are really slim)
post #98 of 294
ID stands for Intelligent Design
post #99 of 294
I've read a couple of more recently-produced texts on ID and YEC. As I said, they demonstrate an unsophisticated (and often inaccurate) understanding of genetics as well as evolution, geology, etc.

F'rinstance: One such text, published by a church group, set out to "prove" not only that evolution never happened, but that the earth was, in fact, about 6,000 years old. As "evidence," they show a picture of some rock formation in... West Virginia, maybe? I can't remember. In any case, the striations on this formation are concave. It's like, the side of a mountain that they carved off to build a road, and the concave striations are supposedly "proof" that this mountain had to have been created by god, because if it wasn't, it would have to have been pushed up and the striations would be convex. I laughed out loud. I'm nothing like a geologist, but I could think of half a dozen reasons without even trying for those striations to be concave. As if the only possible way for a mountain to form would be for it to have pushed up from the Earth! :

The whole publication was like this. Giraffes are proof that evolution never happened, did you know? Also peanut butter... because if evolution happened, there'd be a chance (albeit a small one) every time you opened a fresh jar of peanut butter that there would be NEW LIFE growing inside of it. Yup! Peanut butter contains "all the ingredients needed for life to happen according to those crazy evolutionists!"

I wouldn't have a problem reading one of those books from the sixties-- I'd be willing to bet that the primary difference between the old ones and the new is the lack of scriptural references in the modern ones which refer to themselves as "texts on intelligent design." See, creationism has really evolved a great deal in the past twenty years or so. Now most of them refer to creationism as "intelligent design," so as not to immediately put us heathens on guard. : The word "creationism" immediately makes us think of a particular sort of Christian, but "intelligent design" has more of a scientific, less-religious sort of ring to it. It's okay for a (gasp!) secularist to believe in intelligent design, dontcha know...
post #100 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL
The same with the previous example, per your terminology: A hummingbird, a gull, a chicken, and a parrot are different "species" of bird; and an African Grey parrot is a different "breed" of parrot than a Macaw. But, they are all still from the same "family" - birds.
I'm sorry, you are wrong again.
An African Grey is a different "species" than a Macaw, not different breeds.
Yes, same family. Different species.
I never said member of a family can breed.
I said different species cannot breed.
Same family members cannot breed, because a family contains many different species.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ?