There are some interesting things to note about that word choice. Galupo says:
For one last time: Individuals don’t evolve. Populations do. Furthermore, the genetic mutations that may beneficially affect the survival chances of a species occur at the embryonic level. Hence, fully-grown mammals like Barack Obama and Sean Hannity do not “evolve.” They can turn tail and run, hide in bushes and trees, or surrender meekly to predators or, um, change their minds. But they cannot evolve.Obviously, in the biological sense, no individual can evolve. An individual is what it is. Evolution is, as he says, the change in the makeup of the population as some types of individual organisms become less frequent and others more frequent.
I think one motive for the word choice is that in the popular mind, evolution is seen as going somewhere, and that somewhere is seen as "better". (Indeed, the sequence is so well known it's easy to modify it slightly to make a subtle point or a joke.) We're so familiar with the standard "getting more developed with each stage" visual image of evolution that when President Obama announces that his thinking on gay marriage has "evolved" it implicitly conveys an idea that his thinking has reached a higher and more sophisticated level. It taps into the "right side of history" message which many in that movement want to convey. But of course, the idea that biological evolution is a progressive mechanism in which things get better is wrong, and generally speaking in the wider culture it's precisely the secular folks who take pride in being able to face a "cold, undirected process" of biological development who tell us so. And yet, "evolved" is often used as a positive term with implications of progress in that sector of the culture when it refers to anything other than actually evolution.
Another thing worth noting is that people clearly had to do some creative word choice as "changed his mind" clearly did not apply. I find it well neigh impossible to believe that anyone really thought Obama thought gay marriage wasn't a good idea back in 2008, or come to that that Bill Clinton didn't when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act back in 1996. However, announcing that "I've finally decided it's expedient to be honest about what I think about gay marriage" is hardly the sort of headline that a politician wants to win, so a nice sounding word was in order.
21 comments:
"'Fessed up" doesn't make for good headlines.
Thanks for posting this--it's a big pet peeve of mine, as well.
Despite Pope Pius XII did not forbid evolutionary theory, he treated it to be the new erroneous philosophy.
The following are the extracts from the speech of Pope Pius XII at St. Peter’s (Rome) on 12th August 1950:
Pope Pius XII: “5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that EVOLUTION, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.”
6. SUCH fictitious tenets of EVOLUTION which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, HAVE PAVED THE WAY FOR THE NEW ERRONEOUS PHILOSOPHY which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
Comment upon the speech of Pope Pius XII as listed above and observe those letters that are placed in capital letters. As the phrase, evolution…have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy, is mentioned above, it implies that he treated evolutionary doctrine to be misleading and erroneous. As evolution was treated by Pope Pius XII to be the new erroneous philosophy, he did not treat it to be the truth of God.
Pope Pius XII followed his speech: “8. IN ALL THIS CONFUSION OF OPINION it is some consolation to Us to see former adherents of rationalism today frequently desiring to return to the fountain of divinely communicated truth, and to acknowledge and profess the word of God as contained in Sacred Scripture as the foundation of religious teaching. But at the same time it is a matter of regret that not a few of these, the more firmly they accept the word of God, so much the more do they diminish the value of human reason, and the more they exalt the authority of God the Revealer, the more severely do they spurn the teaching office of the Church, which has been instituted by Christ, Our Lord, to preserve and interpret divine revelation. This attitude is not only plainly at variance with Holy Scripture, but is shown to be false by experience also. For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.”
Comment upon the speech of Pope Pius XII as listed above. The phrase, In all this confusion of opinion, as mentioned above should refer to his speech as mentioned earlier pertaining to his thought of evolution. The phrase, In all this confusion of opinion, as mentioned above, gives us the impression that he treated evolution to be full of confusion.
Pope Pius XII followed his speech: “9. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, CANNOT AFFORD TO IGNORE OR NEGLECT THESE MORE OR LESS ERRONEOUS OPINIONS. Rather they must come to understand THESE SAME THEORIES well, both because DISEASES ARE NOT PROPERLY TREATED unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in THESE FALSE THEORIES a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.”
Comment upon the speech of Pope Pius XII as listed above. As the phrase, cannot afford to ignore…these…erroneous opinions, is mentioned above, it implies that he demanded Christians to be alert and beware of these erroneous opinions instead of ignoring them to let it has the influence upon the Church. The phrase, these false theories, gives the implication that he treated evolutionary theory to be a false theory and should not be treated as part of the truth of God.
Pope Pius XII followed his speech: “10. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that CATHOLIC TEACHERS generally AVOID THESE ERRORS, it is apparent, however, that SOME TODAY, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and FEARING TO BE CONSIDERED IGNORANT OF RECENT SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS, TRY TO WITHDRAW THEM FROM THE SACRED TEACHING AUTHORITY and are accordingly in danger of gradually DEPARTING FROM REVEALED TRUTH and of drawing others along with them into error.”
Comment upon the speech of Pope Pius XII as listed above. As the phrase, Catholic teachers…avoid these errors, is mentioned above, it implies that Catholic teachers should avoid these errors especially evolution had been treated by him as the new erroneous philosophy. As the phrase, some today…fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, is mentioned before the phrase, departing from…truth, it implies that he treated some people that involved in evolution (recent findings) to be those people that depart from the truth of God.
Pope Pius XII followed his speech by: “36. For these reasons THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF CHURCH DOES NOT FORBID that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to THE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the CATHOLIC FATIH obliges us to HOLD that SOULS ARE IMMEDIATELY CREATED BY GOD. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”
As the phrase, the teaching authority of church does not forbid…the doctrine of evolution, is mentioned above, it implies that Paul Pius XII did not interfere the doctrine of evolution despite he treated it as new erroneous philosophy.
As the phrase, souls are immediately created by God, is mentioned above, it implies that he supported that Catholic faith should be based on the concept that all souls are immediately created by God. This teaching certainly contradicts evolutionary theory that teaches that all souls could not be created immediately by God but it would take many years to evolve so as to come into being. Besides, evolutionary theory supports that God do not create directly all souls but have assisted in the process of evolution. This concept is certainly wrong since it implies that God do not involve in the creation of souls but to stand aside just to assist them to be formed. A question has to be raised. Did God create the souls personally or He just stood aside to assist their formation?
Nevertheless, Paul Pius XII did not support that evolutionary theory is the truth of God despite he did not forbid its teaching.
Did Pope John Paul II really support evolutionary theory when he delivered his message to the general audience on 29th January 1986 that the theory of natural evolution was not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis?
The following is the extract from the third paragraph of his dialogue:
The first account, later in time of composition, is more systematic and theological. It uses the term Elohim to designate God. IT DISTRIBUTES THE WORK OF CREATION OVER A SERIES OF SIX DAYS. Scholars have concluded that this text had its origin in the priestly and cultic circles, since THE SEVENTH DAY IS PRESENTED AS THE DAY ON WHICH GOD RESTS. It proposes to man the worker the example of God the Creator. The author of the first chapter of GENESIS wished to CONFIRM the teaching contained in the Decalogue by inculcating the obligation TO KEEP HOLY THE SEVENTH DAY.
Comment upon the speech of Pope John Paul II as listed above and observe those letters that are placed in capital letters. As the phrase, it distributes the work of creation over a series of six days, it gives an undisputable truth that he supported that God’s creation fell within six days. Did he refer a day of the creation as mentioned in Genesis 1 to be a thousand years? No, he did not refer it to more than a day. As the phrase, seventh day is presented as the day on which God rests, is mentioned in his speech above with the phrase, to keep holy the seventh day, it implies that he referred a day to be literally a day instead of more than that. Unless he did not relate the Sabbath day in which the Jews have to keep holy to the seventh day as God rested, a day could represent a thousand years or more. This is by virtue of Sabbath day that the Jews have to observe falls exactly a day instead of more. As he relates Sabbath day to be the seventh day in which God rested, it implies that he did not support that a day in Genesis could be interpreted as a thousand years or more.
The following is the extract from the 8th paragraph of the speech of Pope John Paul II:
‘Together with all that Sacred Scripture says in different places about the work of creation and about God the Creator, this description enables us to set out certain elements in relief:
1) GOD CREATED THE WORLD BY HIMSELF. The creative power is not transmissible—incommunicabilis.
2) GOD FREELY CREATED THE WORLD, WITHOUT ANY EXTERIOR COMPULSION or compulsion or interior obligation. He could create or not create; he could create this world or another one.
3) THE WORLD WAS CREATED IN TIME, therefore, IT IS NOT ETERNAL. It has a beginning in time.
4) THE WORLD CREATED BY GOD is CONSTANTLY MAINTAINED IN EXISTENCE by the Creator. This "maintenance" is, in a certain sense, a continual creation (conservatio est continua creatio).’
Comment upon the speech of Pope Paul II as listed above. As the phrase, God created the world by himself, is mentioned in his speech above, he absolutely supported that this world was God’s creation undoubtedly. As the phrase, God created the world by himself, is mentioned above, it gives also a significant truth that he did not support that God did not create the world directly but to stand aside to assist the evolution of the world. Instead, the creation of the world was the master piece of direct construction from God.
As the phrase, the world was created in time, is mentioned in his speech above, he supported that the world was created in time or immediately. Or in other words, he did not support that this world would take many years to be formed.
As the phrase, it is not eternal, is mentioned in his speech above in the same line with the phrase, the world was created in time, it implies that he did not support God’s creation was eternal and yet evolutionary theory supports eternal evolution.
The phrase, the world created by God is constantly maintained in existence by the Creator, as mentioned in his speech above implies that God maintain the existence of His creation. It could be by means of protecting the world and to prevent it to be worse off or whatever as a result of natural disaster or whatever.
Pope Paul II had mentioned the same in his following speech to emphasize that God was undoubtedly to be the One that directly created the world. He did not stand aside to assist the world to form but to involve personally so as to create it by Himself:
‘For almost two thousand years the Church has consistently professed and proclaimed the truth that THE CREATION OF THE VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE WORLD IS THE WORK OF GOD. It has done this in continuity with the faith professed and proclaimed by Israel, the People of God of the old covenant. The Church explains and thoroughly examines this truth by making use of the philosophy of being, and she defends it from the distortions that arise from time to time in the history of human thought. In the First Vatican Council, in reply to the trends of the pantheistic and materialistic thought of the time, THE CHURCH’S MAGISTERIUM HAS CONFIRMED with particular solemnity AND FORCE THE TRUTH THAT THE CREATION OF THE WORLD IS THE WORK OF GOD. Those same tendencies are present also in our century in certain developments of the exact sciences and of the atheistic ideologies.’
The same is also mentioned below that God was the One that created the world:
‘According to the "canons" added to this doctrinal text, the First Vatican Council confirmed the following truths:
1) The one, true GOD IS CREATOR AND LORD"OF VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE THINGS" (DS 3021).
2) It is contrary to faith to affirm that only matter exists (materialism) (DS 3022).
3) It is contrary to faith to assert that God is essentially identified with the world (pantheism) (DS 3023).
4) IT IS CONTRARY TO FAITH to maintain that creatures, even spiritual ones, are an emanation of the divine substance, or TO AFFIRM THAT THE DIVINE BEING BY its manifestation or EVOLUTION BECOMES EVERYTHING (DS 3024).
5) ALSO CONTRARY TO FAITH is the idea THAT GOD IS the universal or INDEFINITE BEING which in BECOMING DETERMINATE constitutes universe divided into genera, species and individuals (DS 3024).
6) It is likewise contrary to faith to deny that the world and all things contained in it, whether spiritual or material, in their entire substance have been created by God out of nothing (DS 3025).’
Comment upon the speech of Pope Paul II as listed above. As the phrase, It is contrary to faith…to affirm that the divine being by…evolution becomes everything, is mentioned above, it implies that he opposed the faith that God (the divine being) would use evolution as a source to cause everything to be in existence.
As the phrase, God is the universal or indefinite being, is mentioned in his speech above with the phrase, becoming determinate, it implies that God was not created from something else.
Nevertheless, Pope Paul II did not support that God used evolution to be the source that caused everything into existence.
If he did not support that evolution was the source that caused everything into existence, why should he mention that the theory of natural evolution was not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis?
It could be that:
When he mentioned that evolutionary theory was not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis, it could mean that he supported that evolutionary theory and Genesis have the principle and that is to find out how this universe was formed; or to find out how animals were created; or to find out how plants were created; or etc. However, he did not support that the formation of everything was not the direct work of God but through evolution.
Or
He could have made a mistake in his statement.
Or
He spoke it ignorantly.
Zuma,
I have seen you post a number of long comments which are a little bit hard to understand (I think perhaps due to a language difficulty) on several old posts that relate in some sense to evolution. (This one in particular is about the mis-use of the world "evolution" to describe President Obama admitting that he supports gay marriage, so it seems a particularly odd place to have an extended argument about what Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II meant in their statements dealing with evolutionary theory.
However, I think this is a topic that needs good discussion, so I'll commit to putting up a new post dealing with the topic within 24 hours, and I would encourage you, if you are interested, to engage with that post.
In your above explication of John Paul II's statement:
1) I think you're making a major error in assuming that holding the theory of evolution to be an accurate description of how biological creatures change over time as necessitating that God "stand aside" from creation, or that evolution requires an eternal universe. Evolution is a much more modest theory that you're giving it credit for, it simply describes how populations of organisms change over time. And God's creation of the universe is a question of first causes not of mechanism. There is no dichotomy between God's creation and evolution because they are not discussing the same sort of thing.
2) I think you're pretty clearly wrong to take it from John Paul II's statement that he thinks that creation occurred in six 24hr days. He's clearly addressing the anological meaning of the passage, not the literal one.
Let's assume that the formation of an animal from a kind, let's say, an ape, to another, let's say, a human being, is to be considered as creation. Do you think evolutionary theory support that evolution could be ceased in the future? Certainly it does not support it! Or in other words, the doctrine of evolution supports unceasing or eternal progress of evolution. It would turn up to have contradiction with what Pope John Paul II had mentioned in the speech as below:
3) THE WORLD WAS CREATED IN TIME, therefore, IT IS NOT ETERNAL. It has a beginning in time.
You have mentioned that John Paul II did not refer a day of the creation of God to a 24-hours day. Yet you have not mentioned why he should link up Sabbath day (that falls exactly a 24-hours day) to the seventh day in which God rested. If you would consider a Sabbath day to be literal, the same should be the seventh day in which God rested. If you would consider the seventh day to be literal, why should you consider the Sabbath day not to be literal also as he linked up these two days as mentioned in his speech?
Zuma,
Working on a new post on the topic now, so these are brief:
THE WORLD WAS CREATED IN TIME, therefore, IT IS NOT ETERNAL. It has a beginning in time.
Agreed.
Let's assume that the formation of an animal from a kind, let's say, an ape, to another, let's say, a human being, is to be considered as creation. Do you think evolutionary theory support that evolution could be ceased in the future? Certainly it does not support it! Or in other words, the doctrine of evolution supports unceasing or eternal progress of evolution.
Evolution is a way in which populations of biological organisms change over time due to variation and selection. So long as there is a population of organisms that pass on their traits, variation within that population, and selective factors acting on the population, it would continue. However, this doesn't mean that it's "eternal" in any sense. Eternal means without beginning and without end. Obviously, evolution must have had a beginning because the physical world itself had a beginning, and even after that there was a point before which there were no biological organisms to reproduce. Evolution is not capable of addressing the origin point, it deals with what happens after you have a reproducing population. Eternal also means without end. Evolution is agnostic as to whether the world will have an end. Again, it deals only with how populations of organisms change over time. If all biological organisms died tomorrow, evolution would obviously cease. If the world ceased to exist tomorrow, biological creatures would cease with it and evolution would thus cease.
You have mentioned that John Paul II did not refer a day of the creation of God to a 24-hours day. Yet you have not mentioned why he should link up Sabbath day (that falls exactly a 24-hours day) to the seventh day in which God rested. If you would consider a Sabbath day to be literal, the same should be the seventh day in which God rested. If you would consider the seventh day to be literal, why should you consider the Sabbath day not to be literal also as he linked up these two days as mentioned in his speech?
Let's look at what John Paul II said (I'm copying from your comment above so your formatting is preserved:
"Scholars have concluded that this text had its origin in the priestly and cultic circles, since THE SEVENTH DAY IS PRESENTED AS THE DAY ON WHICH GOD RESTS. It proposes to man the worker the example of God the Creator. The author of the first chapter of GENESIS wished to CONFIRM the teaching contained in the Decalogue by inculcating the obligation TO KEEP HOLY THE SEVENTH DAY."
What John Paul II is doing here is using a historical method of analysis. He's placing the composition of the first creation account with a priestly class in Israel and saying that the author distributed the account over six working days and one day of rest in order to convey to the reader the importance of the work and worship cycle which already existed at that time in Israelite religious practice.
Effectively (and I realize you're not going to like this) he's saying that the author chose to tell the creation story as occurring over seven days in order to make a point as to how Israelites should live their lives on a weekly basis. This doesn't really come down one way or the other as to whether the inspired author of the passage thought that the creation of the world literally took place over seven days -- whether he did or not, what John Paul is saying is that the message that the author intended to convey was about religious and work practice not about world history.
In case you are only following the comment thread and not posts, here is the new post that I put up:
http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2013/08/evolution-sex-and-gods-creative-power.html
What did Pope Pius IX want Christians to do towards those fellow Christians that support all things were the divine work from God through evolution?
The following is the extract from Catholics and Evolution, wiki:
On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, during the papacy of Pope Pius IX, who defined dogmatically papal infallibility during the First Vatican Council in 1869–70…..
………………..
……………….
………………..
On God the Creator, the Vatican Council was very clear. The definitions preceding the "anathema" (as a technical term of Catholic theology, let him be "cut off" or excommunicated, cf. Galatians 1:6–9; Titus 3:10–11; Matthew 18:15–17) signify an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Faith (De Fide):
1. On God the creator of all things
1. …..
2. …..
3. …..
4. IF ANYONE SAYS THAT that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from THE DIVINE SUBSTANCE; or that the divine essence, BY the manifestation and EVOLUTION of itself BECOMES ALL THINGS or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self-determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.
5. …..
Comment upon the speech from Pope Pius IX as listed above and observe carefully those letters that are in capital letters.
As the phrase, If anyone says that…the divine substance (could be God)…by…evolution of itself becomes all things…let him be anathema, is mentioned in his speech above, it seems to be that he discouraged Christians to have faith in evolution. The phrase, finite things…spiritual…the divine substance, as mentioned in his speech, could refer to God in which Christians support the divine work of God in evolution. Thus, the phrase, the divine substance…by…evolution…becomes all things, could be interpreted as these Christians should have supported that God by evolution that becomes all things. What did he mention about these people? Let him be anathema. Excommunicate!
Zuma,
The quote you're looking at here condemns pantheism: the idea that the universe is a manifestation of God or emanates from Him, rather than being His creation. It's not dealing with the theory of evolution, even though it uses the word.
Plus, if we took your interpretation to be correct, we'd have to assume that John Paul II and Benedict XVI (at a minimum among recent popes) held views which are anathema. Which creates all sorts of problems on its own.
If Pope Pius IX mentioned the word, evolution, in his speech and did not mean the doctrine of evolution, why should he mention the word, evolution, then?
As he mentioned the phrase, divine substance…by…evolution…becomes all things, is in speech instead of the phrase, (the manifestion of the) divine substance...by ... evolution ...becomes all things, how do you know, for sure, he would referred it to pantheism instead of those Catholics that believe in evolution? Unless he mentioned that (the manifestation of the) divine substance...by... evolution ...becomes all things, he did not refer to those people people that believe the universe is a manifestation of God or emanates from Him.
The list of Darwin’s theory of evolution could be located in the website address, http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/.
As mentioned in the above website, Darwin presumed that life had its commencement from non-life. Life as mentioned by him should refer to a living creature. As it is a lively creature, it has the natural tendency to make or to hunt or to search for food for survival. A non-life as mentioned by him should undoubtedly refer to an object that does not have the tendency or capability to make or to search or to hunt for food for itself for the survival. Could there be any possible reason why a non-life object could turn up to be a lively creature with the capability to make or to hunt or to search for food? By logic, a non-substance would turn up to be another non-life substance. It is impossible for a non-life object to turn up to be a lively creature that could have the capability to make or to hunt or to search for food. There should be a justifiable reason why a non-life object would turn up to be a lively creature that would hunt or to search for food. What factor has contributed to a non-life substance to cause it to turn up to be a lively creature? How could a non-life substance turn up to be a lively creature that could have the capability to know what to react so as to respond to its surrounding environment for its survival? As, by logic, a non-life object could only be able to turn up to be another non-life object instead of a life creature that immediately could have the capability to adapt its environment and to acquire survival technique, this has placed the reliability of evolution into question.
Some scientists might use a certain experiment to support that a non-life object could be transformed into a life creature. However, the life of the new creation could not be prolonged for a day or even longer. It perished immediately after its formation. It seemed to be that the new creation could not have the capability to adapt its environment since it did not have any survival technique or else its life should by all means prolong.
The above has placed the reliability of evolutionary theory into question.
Let’s put it in another scenario. There was no unicellular organism or multicellular organism on Mars. The assumption would turn up to be worse in the sense that evolutionary theory would not be workable in reality.
The following is the extract from the website, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/life-mars-p... , indicating the environmental condition on Mars is suitable for life to begin:
The rover’s lead scientist Prof Steve Squyres said: “Before detecting any clay minerals, Opportunity had mostly been discovering sulphuric acid or evidence of it.
“Clay minerals tend to form only at a more neutral pH. This is water you could drink.
"It was much more favourable for things like prebiotic chemistry – the kind that could lead to the origin of life.”
The same is supported in the website address, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12206179 , explaining the Mars is the place that is suitable for unicellular organism to be formed:
‘Temperature, humidity, pressure, composition of the atmosphere and radiation are the main factors conditioning life on the surface of Mars. When studying the Martian ecology, one must know the total effect of these factors. One may expect that, as a result of adaptation to low temperatures, there is a corresponding shift in the temperature optimum of enzymatic activity. Dryness is the main obstacle to active life. We suggest the presence of some soil moisture and water vapour. Moreover, there can be areas of permafrost. This minimum supply of water and periodic fluctuations of humidity may create conditions for the existence of drought-resistant organisms. Decreased atmospheric pressure alone does not affect micro-organisms, plants, protozoa and even insects. Ciliates reproduce in a flowing atmosphere of pure nitrogen containing 0.0002-0.0005% oxygen as an impurity. Protozoa may also develop in an atmosphere of 98-99% carbon dioxide mixed with 1% O2. Therefore, even traces of oxygen in the Martian atmosphere would be sufficient for aerobic unicellular organisms. Cells and organisms on earth have acquired various ways of protection from uv light, and therefore may increase their resistance further by adaptation or selection. The resistance of some organisms to ionizing radiation is high enough to enable them to endure hard ionizing radiation of the sun. Experiments with unicellular [correction of unicellar] organisms show that the effect of short wave uv radiation depends on the intensity of visible light, long-wave solar uv radiation, temperatures, cell repair processes, and the state of cell components, i.e. whether the cell was frozen, dried or hydrated.’
The same is supported in other websites below:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130312-mars-life-cu...
http://news.discovery.com/space/mars-was-suitable-for-life-scientis...
Despite the presence of environmental condition on Mars that would be suitable for the formation of unicellular and multicellular organisms and that the earth and Mars were formed about the same time, the non-existence of organisms on Mars would imply that evolutionary theory could only be permanently an assumption and could not be workable in reality. The reason is simply that nothing could be formed on Mars despite the presence of its environmental condition is suitable for organisms to be formed. If evolutionary theory is workable, why is it that none of the organisms could be evolved on Mars despite the environmental condition is the same as the earth that has the potentiality to develop organisms?
Scientists support that unicellular organisms would integrate with each other to turn up to be in multicellular organism in the presence of hydrothermal vents. The absence of multicellular organism on Mars despite the presence of unicellular organisms as well as hydrothermal vents, implies that it is impossible for unicellular organisms to be converted to multicellular organism. Hence, this proves the evolutionary theory is not workable in reality.
Even if unicellular and multicellular organisms would be in existence on Mars, the absence of gigantic living creatures on Mars has too placed the reliability of evolutionary theory into question. Why is it that multicellular organisms on Mars could not evolve into gigantic living creatures if evolutionary theory is true?
Nevertheless, the absence of gigantic living creatures on Mars has placed evolutionary theory into question if unicellular organisms do exist on Mars.
There are three different views regarding the time in which the stars were formed.
1)Scriptural order of creation.
Let’s meditate the verses below:
Genesis 1:6, “Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.” (New American Standard Bible)
Genesis 1:11, “Then God said, “Let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so.”
Genesis 1:16, “God made the two [w]great lights, the greater [x]light [y]to govern the day, and the lesser [z]light [aa]to govern the night; He made the stars also.”
As Genesis 1:11,, the creation of fruit-bearing plants or flowering plants, is mentioned after Genesis 1:6, the appearance of land, and before Genesis 1:16, the creation of stars, it implies that the scripture highlights fruit-bearing plants should have been created after the appearance of land and before the creation of stars (Genesis 1:16).
2)Scientific view of creation.
What did scientists suggest the date in which flowering plants began to evolve?
It was shown in the chart from the website address, http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-evolutionary-history-of-plants.... , that the flowering plants began to evolve between 135-65 million years ago.
What did scientists suggest the date of formation of stars?
The following is the extract from the website address, http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question55.... , after the sub-title, Answer:
‘Results from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) released in February 2003 show that the first stars formed when the universe was only about 200 million years old. Observations by WMAP also revealed that the universe is currently about 13. 7 billion years old. So it was very early in the time after the Big Bang explosion that stars formed. ‘
As scientists suggest that flowering plants began to evolve between 135-65 million years ago, the above discovery that first stars were formed only about 200 million years ago would turn up to be that the flowering plants began to evolve after the formation of the earth (4.5 billion years) and after the formation of stars (200 million years ago).
3)Alternative scientific view of creation.
Let’s compare with the extract below from first paragraph of the website address, http://fossils.valdosta.edu/era_precambrian.html :
The sun and solar system formed about 4,600 million (or, 4.6 billion) years ago from a vast cloud of interstellar hydrogen and helium, enriched with a sprinkling of heavier elements. …..LONG BEFORE OUR SUN WAS BORN, generations of STARS LIVED AND DIED, paving the road for the existence of Earth and the other rocky planets.
When was the sun formed?
The following is the extract from the second paragraph of the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun ,
‘The Sun formed about 4.6 billion[b] years ago from the gravitational collapse of a region within a large molecular cloud.’
As the earth was formed in 4.5 billion years ago and the sun was formed in 4.6 billion ago and the stars lived and died long before our sun was born, it implies that this website, supports that the flowering plants began to evolve (135-65 million years) after the formation of the earth (4.5 billion years ago) and before the formation of the stars since they were formed long before the sun was born.
The great discrepancies about times in which the stars were formed have caused us to question how accurate the times that have been furnished by scientists.
Zuma,
You're really not getting yourself anywhere with this -- in part, from what I can tell, because of linguistic barriers.
For instance, in your last comment, you may a basic mistake in what your sources are saying that renders your whole critique null. You take:
‘Results from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) released in February 2003 show that the first stars formed when the universe was only about 200 million years old. Observations by WMAP also revealed that the universe is currently about 13. 7 billion years old. So it was very early in the time after the Big Bang explosion that stars formed. ‘
As meaning that the first stars formed 200 million years ago, but what it actually says is that they formed 200 million years after the Big Bang, in other words, something like 13.5 billion years ago.
I'm sure science will find itself unable to answer such sterling logic, so I think I better close comments on this old post since they clearly can't get any better from here.
Post a Comment