literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 294 Old 08-16-2007, 10:52 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm sorry, but what is your point?

That a ring species should become incapable of breeding due to a physical separation has exactly WHAT to do with evloution? As for the gull example: it's still a bird, but it can't breed with a sparrow, even though they are both definitely birds. So, what is it that you expect that isolated gull "ring" species to now become? A bat? A hummingbird? It's not going to happen.

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.

Just as we would not doubt that a watch has a watchmaker and could not organize it's very intricate parts by itself to tell the time, so do all the creatures on earth, even more complex than the watch, have a Maker.
StacyL is offline  
#62 of 294 Old 08-16-2007, 11:38 PM
 
Pynki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Inside the café au lait
Posts: 7,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You state that as fact when it is infact opinion.

It's lonely being the only XX in a house of XYs.
Pynki is offline  
#63 of 294 Old 08-16-2007, 11:50 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pynki View Post
You state that as fact when it is infact opinion.
You mean you found a watch that made itself???

Of course what I stated is a fact. God is the Maker and Creator of all things in Heaven and on earth.
StacyL is offline  
#64 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 01:42 AM
 
eilonwy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lost
Posts: 15,410
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
Just as we would not doubt that a watch has a watchmaker and could not organize it's very intricate parts by itself to tell the time, so do all the creatures on earth, even more complex than the watch, have a Maker.
: You got your BS in biology, but somehow managed to miss the first semester of philosophy.

Rynna, Mama to Bean (8), Boobah (6), Bella (4) and Bear (2)
eilonwy is offline  
#65 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 02:40 AM
 
mamaverdi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,877
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Evolution means change over time. It's not more specific than that.

Biological evolution is the process of descent (as in descendants) with modification. Biological evolution happens on both small and large scales.

It can bother you, but that doesn't necessarily make it less true.
mamaverdi is offline  
#66 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 02:49 AM
 
mamaverdi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,877
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Here is a good link about Evolution 101 from Berzerkeley. [sic ]
mamaverdi is offline  
#67 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 03:06 AM
 
heket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ruling my own Library
Posts: 2,760
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Why can't it be a blending of both? Seriously, a greater power sets something in motion that then science can explain?

Sorry, that's a rhetorical comment not meant to thwart the discussion.
heket is offline  
#68 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 03:16 AM
 
mamaverdi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,877
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Heket, that was somewhat the point of merpk's article up thread.
mamaverdi is offline  
#69 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 10:12 AM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eilonwy View Post
: You got your BS in biology, but somehow managed to miss the first semester of philosophy.
I know! Unfortunately, back then I was completely ignorant of theology or Thomistic philosophy and had bought the lies the university was selling hook, line, and sinker.

I became Catholic in my early 30's, thanks be to God.
StacyL is offline  
#70 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 11:42 AM
 
suzywan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Stacy, seeing that you are the final authority on all things Catholic, I would think you'd know that the Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution. We are not Creationists, nor are we Biblical literalists, by any stretch of the imagination.

me, my man, and our boys (1/08 and 3/11)
 

suzywan is online now  
#71 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 12:30 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzywan View Post
the Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution. We are not Creationists, nor are we Biblical literalists, by any stretch of the imagination.

The Pope is allowed to give his own personal opinion on any topic, including evolution. It does not hold any binding weight of obligation as he is not speaking ex cathedra on a matter of faith or morals.

It is similar to his recent opinion that one can "hope" that the souls of the unbaptized innocent go to Heaven, instead of to Limbo. It is merely his opinion.

P.S. Catholics are "Biblical literalists" in the sense that we believe the Bible is the Divinely inspired and inerrant Word of God. Therefore, the Genesis account is literally true. I guess this makes Catholics "Creationists" too.
StacyL is offline  
#72 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 02:05 PM
 
the_lissa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Posts: 13,253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I vehemently disagree.

The first thing that we learned in grade 9 religion is that the Bible holds spiritual truth, not necessary literal truth. How else do you explain all the contradictions and inconsistencies. We were also taught evolution. This was reinforced throughout my Catholic high school and university education.

IT's funny that I just ran into my grade nine religion teacher at lunch.

Jam 7, Peanut Butter 5, and Bread 2.

the_lissa is offline  
#73 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 02:08 PM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 32,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
huh?
Arduinna is offline  
#74 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 02:58 PM
 
suzywan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa View Post
I vehemently disagree.

The first thing that we learned in grade 9 religion is that the Bible holds spiritual truth, not necessary literal truth. How else do you explain all the contradictions and inconsistencies. We were also taught evolution. This was reinforced throughout my Catholic high school and university education.
This was my experience as well. In 17 years of Catholic education, I had not once heard that Genesis was literally true. *Some* parts we take as literal Truth -"This is My Body - This is My Blood" - but certainly not Genesis.

ETA: If it's the Pope's personal opinion that evolution is acceptable, then it's glaringly obvious that Genesis can't be taken as literal truth. I doubt the Pope would contradict Church teaching.

me, my man, and our boys (1/08 and 3/11)
 

suzywan is online now  
#75 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 03:14 PM
 
witchygrrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
There have been scientists who are attempting to recreate the primordial soup of ancient earth with some very interesting results.

And if it weren't from single cells, did frogs and antelopes just *poof* from out of thin air by the power of God? What was so utterly unconvincing from your coursework in biology?

Come ponder with me about food!
witchygrrl is offline  
#76 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 03:24 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by witchygrrl View Post
There have been scientists who are attempting to recreate the primordial soup of ancient earth with some very interesting results.
And they have yet to get any cells to organize themselves into well, ...anything at all! Not even a simple organism. Hmmmm... wonder why that is?

Perhaps because God did, in fact, poof! - make them?

Also, wanted to add that He made all things out of nothing (read: no thing) and He made Adam and Eve from the slime of the earth.
StacyL is offline  
#77 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 03:30 PM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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)

Quote:
Again, as I just posted, this is ADAPTATION, not 'evolution.'
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.
orangebird is offline  
#78 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 03:30 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa View Post
I vehemently disagree.

The first thing that we learned in grade 9 religion is that the Bible holds spiritual truth, not necessary literal truth. How else do you explain all the contradictions and inconsistencies. We were also taught evolution. This was reinforced throughout my Catholic high school and university education.

IT's funny that I just ran into my grade nine religion teacher at lunch.
Wow, that is truly scary.

I'm an adult convert so I never attended Catholic school, but this is probably why Archbishop Fulton Sheen made his famous statement (paraphrasing), "I'd rather have a Catholic child go to a government (public) school and have to defend their faith then go to a Catholic school and lose it."
StacyL is offline  
#79 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 03:37 PM
 
chfriend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: in a red state
Posts: 4,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The Roman Catholic Church and the Holy Father Pope Benedict agree that the theory of evolution has a scientific basis. There is no Catholic teaching that holds otherwise.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...002700,00.html

in case anyone might be confused by the discussion amongst the Catholics.
chfriend is offline  
#80 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 03:40 PM
 
the_lissa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Posts: 13,253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks chfriend.

I'm really curious how some people claim things are or are not Catholic when the Vatican says otherwise.

Jam 7, Peanut Butter 5, and Bread 2.

the_lissa is offline  
#81 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 03:40 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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).
StacyL is offline  
#82 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 03:45 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
StacyL is offline  
#83 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 04:01 PM
 
chfriend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: in a red state
Posts: 4,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
chfriend is offline  
#84 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 04:03 PM
 
the_lissa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Posts: 13,253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Jam 7, Peanut Butter 5, and Bread 2.

the_lissa is offline  
#85 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 04:26 PM
 
heket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ruling my own Library
Posts: 2,760
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
heket is offline  
#86 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 04:34 PM
 
suzywan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.

me, my man, and our boys (1/08 and 3/11)
 

suzywan is online now  
#87 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 04:47 PM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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...)
orangebird is offline  
#88 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 04:51 PM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
orangebird is offline  
#89 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 04:55 PM
 
~PurityLake~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, US
Posts: 6,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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'.

Katreena, peace.gif 39 year old Alaskan treehugger.gif Mama to 1 hearts.gif and 1 lady.gif gd.gif
 
 
 
 

~PurityLake~ is offline  
#90 of 294 Old 08-17-2007, 07:12 PM
 
~PurityLake~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, US
Posts: 6,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Looks like I killed this thread.

Katreena, peace.gif 39 year old Alaskan treehugger.gif Mama to 1 hearts.gif and 1 lady.gif gd.gif
 
 
 
 

~PurityLake~ is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off