i believed in evolution tell i got the grace to look at criticism of this theory. was a shocker i started to reevaluate everything, i went from be a modernist to a traditional Catholic. i have degrees in math and physics and it was hard to give modernism up. truly a grace from God
@@tito810 study Thomism. If you study Evolution and it's modernistic being, and Thomistic theology/philosophy at the same time, you can see evolution becomes illogical
Today, our priest taught the congregation using the big bang and evolution to support his merry go round-like homily; which was introduced by talking about his findings while browsing facebook. He opened his talk by citing the facebook posting by an actress, who stated that her career didn't begin to flourish until she had an experience volunteering in a mission which taught her that she was focused on her career first instead of God. I was heart-broken. Thank you for this TRUE and faithful teaching.
As a Catholic whom has debated many Darwinian evolutionists on this subject, there are three main points us Catholics need to understand in support of our faith. 1. Let me explain....Evolutionists claim everything arose from a simple, single cell organism. That over billions of years, these single cells introduced new information into their DNA structures to become new independent kinds (i.e. plants, fish, birds, humans etc.). One kind would evolve into another kind through a process of random mutation and selection. This, is to suggest that these cells would randomly mutate into creating NEW DNA INFORMATION needed to change its own genetic makeup, and thus its kind. This scientific hypothesis (idea) is the fundamental foundation of Darwinian evolution. Problem is, absolutely NO evidence exists, either scientifically or through the fossil record that this occurs or is indeed even possible. In fact, all laboratory tests that tried to introduce new DNA information into a cell, completely failed. Scientists are simply unable to prove their idea on new DNA information, and thus it is unfounded and unproven and not a scientific fact. Dr. Jonathon Well, a Biologist explains ua-cam.com/video/iKPSgFrI-EU/v-deo.html . The DNA argument is unfounded and unproven and not a scientific fact. 2. Darwinian evolutionists consolidate the term EVOLUTION to incorporate ALL types of evolution. This is done to distort the scientific evidence for one type evolution. Case in point, evolution consists of two INDEPENDENT types of evolution. MICRO evolution and MACRO evolution. MICRO evolution is the scientifically observed and universally accepted form of evolution (the adaptations or minor changes WITHIN a species i.e. types of dogs, birds, plants, apes etc). MACRO evolution (or Darwinian evolution which CANNOT be scientifically observed, nor is universally accepted), claims one kind of animal evolves into another kind of animal (i.e. ape to human). And this is where they blur the lines. Darwinian evolutionists claim that there is no micro or macro evolution.... just evolution. This argument allows them to use MICRO evolution (which is indeed observed and studied) as evidence to support the HYPOTHESIS (idea) for MACRO evolution or Darwinism, through an extension of probability. The problem is that no evidence at all exists of one kind of animal evolving into another kind of animal. Fossil records CANNOT prove macro evolution because there are no intermediary fossils found that are scientifically proven. A crude example would be.....Let's say in one hundred years from now, a scientist in a remote part of the world finds the bones of a Chihuahua, a bulldog and a great dane. He can claim the idea (Hypothesis) that the great Dane (through the fossil remains) has evolved through intermediary fossils (the bulldog) from the chihuahua . The scientific hypothesis (idea) would suggest that this is MACRO evolution (Darwinism) at work. This unproven idea, though not scientific in any regard, may be accepted by the scientific community to account for the fossil record and become accepted evidence. The problem is though, they are all still dogs. This is MICRO evolution or the adaptations or minor changes WITHIN a species of animal. They have not evolved into another kind of animal as MACRO evolution infers. They are simply different species of dogs. A great movie by Protestant Ray Comfort explains ua-cam.com/video/U0u3-2CGOMQ/v-deo.html 3. Scientists, secular scholars and theologians will continuously move the goalposts in this argument to divert your attention from these facts. They propagate ideas that are not scientific or proven to assert Darwinian evolution. If we are able to always come back to the above points and their understanding and proof, we can show with confidence how much their argument is based on assumptions and not scientific fact. There are over 500 scientists whom have publicly acknowledged their doubt in Darwinian evolution. This in itself demonstrates it is a highly contentious discipline and not endorsed by the whole scientific community. evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/
Sorry Dean But this is just a deluded waffle of words with plenty of strawman arguments and plenty of arguments from ignorance. Can you submit any EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to falsify the ToE?
Captain Gaza, A little underwhelming response, but seeing as though you will not be able to provide any scientific proof yourself, let's begin with this shall we. Mutation - natural selection Here is how macro evolution is supposed to happen. On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. Icons of evolution : ua-cam.com/video/iKPSgFrI-EU/v-deo.html Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on. Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter. Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed. Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance. To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread ("sweep") through a population and stay (become "fixed"). To evolutionists, this idea has been essential for so long that it is called a "classic sweep", "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population." Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans, and reported their findings in the journal Science. "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations". "In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years." Evolutionists had identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome", and they expected that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps." So what did they find? "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings". Sweeps "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years." --Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924. 35 year SCIENCE EXPERIMENT A 35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation. They wrote that "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations". "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." -- Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590. You may have heard of the famous Lenski experiment. Dr. Richard E. Lenski is an evolutionary biologist who began a long-term experiment on February 24, 1988 that continues today. It looks for genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of Escherichia coli bacteria that have been adapting to conditions in their flasks for over 60,000 generations. His work has been simplified in a report by Scott Whynot, who studied 26 peer-reviewed scientific articles authored by Dr. Lenski (with others) published between 1991 and 2012. These papers represent the major genetic findings from 21 years of the experiment. 1. There was an insertion mutation that inhibited transcription of DNA involved in cell wall synthesis. 2. There was an insertion mutation in a regulatory region that encodes two proteins involved with cell wall synthesis. This may have led to larger cells. 3. A mutation in a gene led to a defect in DNA repair. 4. An insertion mutation may have knocked out a gene involved in programmed cell death and response to stress. 5. There was another mutation in a gene involved in response to stress, disrupting its function. 6. There was a mutation in the gene that encodes an enzyme that loosens DNA coils, leading to an increase in DNA supercoiling. 7. There was an insertion mutation in a gene that represses the production of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), a molecule that participates in many metabolic reactions, some affecting longevity. This might allow more NAD production. 8. The researchers noted an insertion mutation that they think inactivated a gene, resulting in greater glucose uptake. Glucose is a limited energy source in the experiment. 9. Deletion mutations caused the loss of the ability to catabolize D-ribose, an energy source that is not available in the experiment. 10. There was a mutation in a gene regulating transport of the sugar maltose, an energy source that is not present in the experiment. 11. After about 30,000 generations, the E. coli in one of the twelve isolated populations began to utilize an energy source, citrate, that they normally could not use in the presence of oxygen. E. coli already have the ability to transport and metabolize citrate where there is no oxygen, but they do not produce an appropriate transport protein for an environment with oxygen. In E. coli DNA, the gene for the citrate transporter that works without oxygen is directly upstream from genes for proteins with promoters that are active in the presence of oxygen. A replication of the region happened to put the transporter gene next to one of these promoters, so it could now be expressed in the presence of oxygen. Except for number 11, the changes found in over 60,000 generations of bacteria were due to the disruption, degradation, or loss of genetic information. The ability to use citrate in the presence of oxygen, trumpeted by evolutionists as a big deal, was the result of previously existing information being rearranged, not the origin of new information. Mutations that result in a gain of novel information have not been observed. "Most long-term evolution experiments thus far have been performed in bacteria or haploid yeast populations, where, in most environments, there exist a number of loss-of-function mutations that provide a selective advantage." "For instance, sterility in yeast provides a selective advantage by eliminating unnecessary gene expression." "The emergence of the Cit+ phenotype is the exception in experimental evolution, where most evolved mutations affect independent genes and biological pathways, driven largely by large-target loss-of-function mutations."-- Lang, Gregory I., Michael M. Desai. 2014. The spectrum of adaptive mutations in experimental evolution. Genomics, Vol. 104, No. 6, Part A, pp. 412-416. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.
Dean. Sorry to disappoint you but it seems you've been bamboozeled by your own BS. That was quite the Gish Gallop!!! Let's simplify. We are not even going to refer to the Theory of Evolution or mutations or genetic drift or anything over your head. Firstly, let me ask you Do you ACCEPT that things CHANGE OVER TIME?
How about you provide some so called evidence we can dissect and expose for what it is, philosophy, instead of redundant rhetoric and nonsensical self indulgent verbal diarrhea. How bout you start with the presented data, then we move onto the Cambrian, and Chromosome 2.
Dean. I asked you a simple question that's not that difficult for your pip to absorb. Let's keep it simple for your sake. Do you ACCEPT that things CHANGE OVER TIME??? A simple yes or no will suffice. We can get to the nitty gritty later.
Prof. Derek Ager of the University at Swansea, Wales, in Proc. Geol. Assoc. Vol. 87, p. 132 (1976) has stated "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea to Carruther's Raphrentis delanouei, have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive."
The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away. Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people-until it is examined quantitatively, that is! For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense. Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare-not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most. But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts." The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021. All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!
Evolution is today’s secular religion. Evolutionists have their own creation story (abiogenesis), holy books (On the Origin of Species, The God Delusion), priesthood (Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins), seminaries (universities), and houses of worship (atheist “mega-church” movement).
Anyone who denys evolution and the big bang denys mountains of scientific evidence. There is no conflict at all between our faith and these mechanisms by which God uses to create. Let us not simplify the ways of our God. Also as a recent philosophy grad i feel I can confidently say that there is no conflict between philosophical reasoning and evolutionary theory.
I agree Father. The real big bang is not from guns and explosives. The big bang theory as I experienced is the True Gift of holy love given to us by God the Father through the Holy Trinity. Unfortunately, satan and his legions always try to steal true love. In the final judgement they will lose if they do not repent and make Amens
This sermon has been thought provoking, and I should like to add some more provocation to this. 1 - It is curious to note that Cain had a wife, but she was never mentioned as a daughter of Adam and Eve. So too did Seth find a wife as well, under the same conditions. The Bible's silence on this is not definitive by any stretch of the imagination, but it is interesting to imagine. Not only that, but recall that the penalty for eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was that we would ''surely die'. That this was a spiritual death might perhaps imply that Eve was the mother of all biological homo sapiens to whom God had gifted an intellective soul (as opposed to the sensitive soul of the animal, or the vegetative soul of the plant). No proof there, just something to ponder. 2 - Approximately 70,000 years ago (creationists, please, humour me), the population of homo sapiens became perilously low. As in, no more than a few thousand. This was due to a posited natural disaster. What this means is that modern humans are amongst the least genetically diverse species on planet Earth. Surely, this indicates that monogenesis of the soul is at least biologically possible. 3 - We are indeed dust, and the priest unfortunately neglects to consider this on the individual, everyday level (and the ultimate level too). Starting broad, assuming the evolutionary hypothesis to be true, the first living things were formed from chemicals, which were themselves likely formed from the dust of the earth poured out through deep ocean thermal vents. Even for every one of us today, we still come from dust. All the hydrogen comes from water, oxygen from the air and water, carbon from the air and the dust, and nitrogen from the dust. When we breath our last, all the water and dust returns to the ground. I really don't see the issue here. 4 - The perfect comes from the Latin word 'perfectare', meaning 'to complete'. In this case, it means to be complete and finished. But what does that mean, and on what level do we look? Are we looking at species? Is a cat, insofar as it is a cat, a perfect cat, and insofar as it has a mutation (e.g. albino), an imperfect cat? Are we looking more broadly? Is an animal, insofar as it has a sensitive soul and the abilities associated with animals, a perfect animal, regardless of whether it's a cat or a dog or something else besides? Of course, the change from plant to animal, and from animal to man, depends on a different kind of soul with different powers. So I make no opposition to the suggestion that we need a miracle there. But the first human soul, even though born from parents with a sensitive soul, would not need to be immaculately conceived, for the simple difference in soul kind would not have transmitted sin. 5 - Death is not evil, nor contrary to God. Otherwise, He wouldn't have died for us. Also, by pronouncing the penalty of death for Adam and Eve if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it implies that death was already there, and already known. Why legislate a penalty if you didn't want it to be there? 6 - Who's to say that the Garden of Eden was even in this universe? We know Heaven must have a material component, as our Lord and our Lady are both there bodily, along with Elijah, St Joseph, and Moses (if I recall correctly). We can posit that Hell has a material component as well, as I believe pious tradition does hold that Judas was bodily taken to Hell (ouch). Therefore, we can easily postulate a separate realm in which our first parents entered, a sort antechamber for this one, in which they were tested. Their decision there affected this universe that would be put in to. I'm basing myself here off of Dante's Purgatorio, which places Eden at the pinnacle of the Mount of Purgatory. Apologies for writing so much, but I do enjoy asking questions. I do have my own thoughts on these (and I would tend to disagree with the overarching drive of the priest's sermon), but I'm interested in what others say too. His points on science being used a basis of morality though, I completely agree. Evolution can work in science, but its rubbish theology and philosophy (principle of non-contradiction, anyone?). God love you all. ^_^
Evolution is bad science. I sat down to study it years ago and spent two years reading all the books I could, both for and against it. The counter arguments seemed credible, but the hardest thing for me to get past was, if evolution were wrong, why did so many smart people and scientists believe it? Eventually, I realized that as a work of science evolution was almost useless because it made no predictions, and as a theory, it was not falsifiable, but as a mythology, it was a wonderful creation myth that could "explain" the world without the need for God. That's when it became clear to me that evolution was believed not because of it's scientific merits, but because it provided a way for people to remove God from their lives. That's why evolutionists are so hateful to people who disagree with them. You are touching a scar, a wound, in their psyches that they were able to cover up with the mythology, and to them, criticizing the theory is a direct attack on themselves, because it brings back the knowledge, the awareness (that's what your psyche is, an awareness), of the thing they were trying to deny - that they have a responsibility to their maker and they will be held morally accountable for their actions. Good Pro-evolution Book Darnwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel C Dennet - this book is good because while most evolutionists are dishonest on this point, Dennett admits that if you accept the premise of biological evolution, you must admit that the same principle that "creates" design in biological life, must also be at work in everything else in the universe. Hence, Darwin's idea is "dangerous" in the sense that, if it is true, and Dennet believes it is, that evolution governs not only life, but everything. Basically, if you're going to be intellectually honest, you can't be Catholic and an evolutionist, because they are mutually exclusive ideas. Good Book Against Evolution Icons of Evolution Book by Jonathan Wells - this book is good because it shows the long series of hoaxes in the history of evolutionary science which, even though they have been admitted by scientists, the hoaxes have not been made well known to the public. Each generation is raised on a hoax, and when that hoax is proven false 20 to 40 years later, the damage has already been done, and a new hoax is put in place. Basically, the author shows that even scientists themselves know how weak the evidence for evolution really is because so many of them have created false evidence to support it.
Amen, amen well said Father and there is no better way than the way you describe the so-called “Evolution: The Religion of the Anti-Christ”. God be praised for the gift of excellent and powerful preaching that He has given to you. Amen!
I am getting ready to come into the church during the Easter vigil. I don't consider myself a traditional catholic. I only simply consider myself catholic in the purest defenition of the word. As someone who recently graduated with a degree in philosophy I have to say that evolution is completely coherent from a philosophical sense. Also I feel denying mountains of scientific evidence both for evolution and the big bang theory is just embarrassing for us as a church today. It's why many of those in my generation reject Christianity as a whole today as they consider it to be anti scientific. There is no conflict whatsoever with excepting the theory of evolution and the big bang theory just as long as one realizes that these are mechanisms by which God chooses to create and they bring glory and honor to him. Let us not simply our faith and our God by trying to simplify the mechanisms by which God uses to create.
First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
Oh sorry, we actually have seen evolution in numerous instances, in well-documented cases where the evolution of new traits occurs under observation. I can give you links if you're interested.
Epic Michael Here are two. It's not hard to find examples of evolution happening literally in front of us. Why should I not believe these trained scientists? phys.org/news/2010-09-scientists-evolution-action.html phytokeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=1432
Thanks for the links i did read the articles and here are my thoughts: From the article in the 1st link: The yellow-bellied three-toed skink (Saiphos equalis) is one of only three reptiles known to have different methods of reproduction in different places. It appears these lizards reproduce in an amazing variety of ways. Some lay eggs (oviparity) and some bear live young (viviparity). However many types of lizard (including S. equalis) originally had the capacity for both reproductive modes.There’s no evidence S. equalis is abandoning oviparity. No oviparous populations of S. equalis are showing signs of changing reproductive mode. There is a difference in reproductive mode between populations that appears to be related to differences in climate, but individual skinks are stable; they don’t change reproductive mode throughout their lifetimes even when climates change. Researchers have observed no sign that skinks (or other creatures) have acquired or are acquiring completely new physiologies or behaviors that weren’t already latent in them. Thus not proof of evolution but of adaptation. No proof that something "new" was introduced into the species that it didn't already have. From the article in the 2nd link: Polyploidization plays an important role in species formation as chromosome doubling results in strong reproductive isolation between derivative and parental taxa. Most multicellular organisms are ‘diploid’, having two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent, but sometimes organisms can have extra sets of chromosomes-this is called polyploidy. Polyploidy is common in plants, especially in cultivated plants. Different species of coffee plant have 88, 66, 44, and 22 chromosomes. Note that they are all still called coffee. Some strawberries are octoploid, having eight sets of chromosomes rather than the original two sets, but they are still strawberries.A polyploid plant will usually not be able to breed with the parent species, and can consistently produce offspring with the same number of chromosome sets as itself. This can then be considered a new species. Note that there is no new genetic information involved, just repetition of existing information. By analogy, if a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be printed with every page doubled, there would be no new information, just repetitious doubling of the existing information. No proof that something "new" was introduced into the species that it didn't already have.
Epic Michael 'Adaptation' is the only thing needed; evolution always modifies traits that already exist. Once the lizards become isolated you'll have two populations with different modes of reproduction. But the only thing needed for new traits is to simply mutate a duplicated gene - the moment that happens you have new information, as in our own case: www.scripps.edu/news/press/2012/20120503polleux.html That's all that's necessary for evolution; and we can literally watch it happen with Mimulus.
I greatly respect when this priest speaks on psychology, sociology, and things of the purely human order. I respect him when he speaks on the sacraments, on Catholic theology, on history, on philosophy. But on evolution, he shares much in common with the fundamentalist Protestant preacher, a very disreputable character.
Mr.W. this priest as well as many people do understand evolution, its just that they disagree with the superstitious & evil religion & excuse that evolution really is. Like the speaker said, you can not give what you dont have. Matter cannot arise out of nothing without a being that is infinitely superior to matter. Emperical science can only speak about measurement, if its not doing that, then its pseudo science which evolution is used as. When evolution is used as a pseudo science its for the sake & excuse for expidiancy money &/or power. Evolution is a religion where only men with power qualify as gods in which they formulate their own ethics & interpretation of the world in oder to control, lie,cheat, steal, & murder. The 1st evolutionist was satan then adam & eve. however, adam& eve repented. Evolution is about disobidience "i will not serve", evolution has nothing to do with measurement.The concept & idea of evolution is as old as man, the word "evolution" is in the context of history, new. Evolution is about disobidience for the hatred & destruction of man. Emperical science can only be about measurement & numerical quantity. a measurement that is capable of being reproduced.
God is omnipotent. He can create a world with a snapping of His fingers or slowly. He is also the Truth and the Ruler of time. And since He acts in a hidden way, He is more likely to have created man by using evolution or sth like this. The problem is using the evolution for anti-God propaganda. What do you think about this ?
If creation was left alone i guess i'd believe devolution would be more natural. look around you. stupidity happens. if the divine left us alone, we'd be gone.
We shouldn't criticize Pope Benedict. Like Pope John Paul II, he is surrounded by demons who would not listen to Truth. Including the real Truth of Christina Gallagher ' s messages from Heaven that have been distorted by people who are afraid that they are wrong about their own man-made religions stemming from Pride. I think it's nice that Pope Benedict extends his blessings and spiritual sufferings for those who are unbelievers. Who knows, maybe Steven Hawkins will get Baptized and learn to thank God for his sufferings and realize that Jesus suffers with him on the cross of life here on earth. In heaven, we will be made perfect through the Sacrament of confession or reconciliation. All things are possible for God! He wants us to be hesled through humility, confesduon, pray and most of all love! But that picture of that guy in the newspaper with an Italian name, though he doesn't look italian (?) Scares me! I'm getting a good education here at home from Great Priests like you Father! God Bless you forever!
I Reject those evil theories of evolution in Jesus' s Holy Name. However, that one theory you mentioned about our one true God, Creator, having made mankind and choosing one man and woman to follow His Laws of love (and we know from our history what original sin caused by the ancient serpent and their disobedience) could hold truth? How did mankind end up looking so different from one another? Real beauty is in the souls of Catholic Believers through the Holy Spirit Which is the Spirit of Love emanating from the Father and Son!
What about fossils? You can argue evolution's evidence based on comparative anatomy or genetics saying that simmilar designs mean same designer, but when you have fossils at different levels in thre ground, showing different stages of evolution, how can you argue that?
I admire the priest and love his sermons, but the phrase "big bang" stands for an expansion, not for an explosion. In Humani generis, Pius XII did let experts study the idea that the human body evolved from preexisting matter. Father says that the theory of evolution is nonphilosophical. Then he seems to forget that the human soul is what makes a body a human one and a person a human one. So creatures with nonhuman souls wouldn't nonhuman. So if I Adam's body became human because God put a human soul into it, then Adam and Eve are still our first parents and polygenism is still false. Young-earth creationists believe that fossil record gaps disprove the theory of evolution. But if they would read the Catholic Encyclopedia's article about creation is not a change. To create, God causes his creatures to exist while they do exist, even if they always have existed and even if they always will exist. He's constantly giving them their existence to sustain them. So in their theological senses, the verbs "to create" and "to conserve" mean the same thing. Like people, cats, dogs, chimps, trees, planets, and even natural processes are God's creatures. If I'm right, and if populations evolve by natural selection, then evolution presupposes creation. If God weren't creating, there would be no fossil record gaps because there would be nothing at all. I'm not an evolutionist. I'm not a young earth creationist either because I don't know what to be. My point is that I think Father oversimplified scientifically and philosophically. Here's a link to the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia. www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm Here's a link to an article about the big bang. profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/history-of-the-universe/big-bang-expansion-not-explosion/
"I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them." Charles fuckin Darwin
Saint Paul spoke of these times when he preached about itching ears, when people would no longer accept sound doctrine but would set the Truth aside to believe myths. Evolution is a myth, it has NEVER been observed that a creature produces a creature other than its own kind. It has never been observed that a lower creature adds dna and becomes a higher creature. Big bang is simply another myth for arrogant men to believe. It has Never been observed that any kind of explosion produces anything other than chaos. I though the greatest of sinners have seen creatures namely birds created out of nothing before my very eyes from GOD. I have also seen the Blood of Christ appear in an empty chalice. With trembling I swear I speak the Truth.
I agree with this Father about evolution, relativism, and anything against Church teaching; but he is doom and gloom towards credible theories "of attempts" to explain our origin. I thinks he hurts his own credibility concerning his doom and gloom outlook on his interpretation of doubtful thoughts. He has a condescending attitude towards man, God, and science. He is wrong; spreading error, about the Church's stance on "many Adams" (poly-Adams). He also has a negative definition about disorder and the definition of creation. He is showing that he has very little understanding of the relationship between God and science. After attacking Darwinism and physical evolution alike, WHICH HE SHOULD AND DOES A GOOD JOB, he then turns on science and then the Church. He should just condemn the Vatican for embracing some scientific thought and theories that he disagrees with, too; which i think he did.
I fail to see the connection between the error of evolution theory and astronomical science? Annnd uh, wasn’t “Big Bang” theorized by a Catholic priest?
wonderful, there is a you tuber goes by trey smith...man does he prove creation .....my dad a creational supporter would say "if they can make a fairy tail out of Genesis, then they shall try to make a fairy tail out of the rest of the bible"
Have you watched this? UA-cam "THE FAMOUS ATHEIST WHO BELIEVES IN GOD AND MIRACLES" It is Dr Ricardo Castanon PhD. Also watch "The Shroud of Turin: A Scientific View" on UA-cam. Recently the Turin Shroud has been discovered to contain the same DNA as every single known Eucharistic Miracle AND the Holy Sudarium of Valencia Cathedral
HISTORICAL - NOT EMPIRICAL, JOHN H. HORNER "...paleontology is a historical science, a science based on circumstantial evidence, after the fact. We can never reach hard and fast conclusions in our study of ancient plants and animals... These days it's easy to go through school for a good many years, sometimes even through college, without ever hearing that some sciences are historical or by nature inconclusive." Dinosaur Lives, 1997, p.19
Wait, this is a Catholic sermon? I thought the Pope accepted evolution. Doesn't that imply that the Catholic Church's official position is that evolution is true?
Not at all, not everything a pope believes is an infallible teaching of the Church which every catholic is bound to accept. That is a very common misconception. Putting that aside, catholics are not obligated to believe in evolution anymore than they are obligated to believe in UFOs.
+occasionalskeptic There are very few Roman Catholics who accept this heresy being professed by the sermon. Pope Pius XII said "There is no conflict between the theory of evolution and the Catholic Religion."
davitz77 Not really because church leaders have not declared it to be a doctrine of the Church. It is merely an opinion some hold. No catholic is bound to believe in evolution. When I say it is satanic, I'm simply expressing a personal opinion.
+Happy63funny I for my part have read a bit genetics. Did you know that Cavalli-Sforza, a famous geneticist, who is also an evolutionist, during his studies had a problem with the "laws of Mendel", which I, as learning them from a creationist mother, never had? Obvious, since laws of Mendel show that there is a finite and definite number of chromosomes for each kind of being (less so for plants, where the number can be multiplied by different powers of two, or even by six, and where infertile forms with uneven numbers also exist), which is one major hurdle for evolution theory.
Terribly un-orthodox catholic video, which is based on the silly perspective that nature is separate from grace. Sorry, but De Lubac was right , Theology and Philosophy are one. This video strengthens Catholicism's enemies, so much for Faith and Reason.
SM We still have more Popes and saints on our side remember. And Pope Pius Xll did not endorse it but accepted discussion about it to most likely overrun it afterwards once and for all.
if you believe in evolution - ask yourself- why scientists with all their "power" have not made a single cell of life! even though they know what all the parts of a cell are. If they can't even make ANY life - look around to see the miracle of God. All creation came through the word. Jesus. If you don't believe ask him in humility and he will show you the truth. Do not be like pontious pilate and ask " truth? what is that? " and walk away
Unclenate1000 they confuse all the terms because they are ignorant. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. The bible is infallibale in its teachings of morality not its teaching of science.
Zachary Griffin. evolution is a religion for homosexual survial of strongest&fitest weaker genes r elimated female gene would not survive if this theory was correct only God can create a female
This is the worst take on evolution I've ever heard in my life. Not one time in this video do you even define what evolution is correctly. It's over 20 minutes of arguing from ignorance.
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Because it is not. The center of mass for the solar system is the Sun. The center of the Milky Way Galaxy is not the center of the Earth.
i believed in evolution tell i got the grace to look at criticism of this theory. was a shocker i started to reevaluate everything, i went from be a modernist to a traditional Catholic. i have degrees in math and physics and it was hard to give modernism up. truly a grace from God
patrick white can you please explain how did this transition happen?
@@tito810 study Thomism. If you study Evolution and it's modernistic being, and Thomistic theology/philosophy at the same time, you can see evolution becomes illogical
Awesome Sermon Father and so very true! God bless you!
Jesus is the way the TRUTH and the life. May our good lord lead us to the truth amen.
Today, our priest taught the congregation using the big bang and evolution to support his merry go round-like homily; which was introduced by talking about his findings while browsing facebook. He opened his talk by citing the facebook posting by an actress, who stated that her career didn't begin to flourish until she had an experience volunteering in a mission which taught her that she was focused on her career first instead of God.
I was heart-broken. Thank you for this TRUE and faithful teaching.
As a Catholic whom has debated many Darwinian evolutionists on this subject, there are three main points us Catholics need to understand in support of our faith.
1. Let me explain....Evolutionists claim everything arose from a simple, single cell organism. That over billions of years, these single cells introduced new information into their DNA structures to become new independent kinds (i.e. plants, fish, birds, humans etc.). One kind would evolve into another kind through a process of random mutation and selection. This, is to suggest that these cells would randomly mutate into creating NEW DNA INFORMATION needed to change its own genetic makeup, and thus its kind. This scientific hypothesis (idea) is the fundamental foundation of Darwinian evolution. Problem is, absolutely NO evidence exists, either scientifically or through the fossil record that this occurs or is indeed even possible. In fact, all laboratory tests that tried to introduce new DNA information into a cell, completely failed. Scientists are simply unable to prove their idea on new DNA information, and thus it is unfounded and unproven and not a scientific fact. Dr. Jonathon Well, a Biologist explains ua-cam.com/video/iKPSgFrI-EU/v-deo.html . The DNA argument is unfounded and unproven and not a scientific fact.
2. Darwinian evolutionists consolidate the term EVOLUTION to incorporate ALL types of evolution. This is done to distort the scientific evidence for one type evolution. Case in point, evolution consists of two INDEPENDENT types of evolution. MICRO evolution and MACRO evolution.
MICRO evolution is the scientifically observed and universally accepted form of evolution (the adaptations or minor changes WITHIN a species i.e. types of dogs, birds, plants, apes etc).
MACRO evolution (or Darwinian evolution which CANNOT be scientifically observed, nor is universally accepted), claims one kind of animal evolves into another kind of animal (i.e. ape to human). And this is where they blur the lines. Darwinian evolutionists claim that there is no micro or macro evolution.... just evolution. This argument allows them to use MICRO evolution (which is indeed observed and studied) as evidence to support the HYPOTHESIS (idea) for MACRO evolution or Darwinism, through an extension of probability.
The problem is that no evidence at all exists of one kind of animal evolving into another kind of animal. Fossil records CANNOT prove macro evolution because there are no intermediary fossils found that are scientifically proven. A crude example would be.....Let's say in one hundred years from now, a scientist in a remote part of the world finds the bones of a Chihuahua, a bulldog and a great dane. He can claim the idea (Hypothesis) that the great Dane (through the fossil remains) has evolved through intermediary fossils (the bulldog) from the chihuahua . The scientific hypothesis (idea) would suggest that this is MACRO evolution (Darwinism) at work. This unproven idea, though not scientific in any regard, may be accepted by the scientific community to account for the fossil record and become accepted evidence. The problem is though, they are all still dogs. This is MICRO evolution or the adaptations or minor changes WITHIN a species of animal. They have not evolved into another kind of animal as MACRO evolution infers. They are simply different species of dogs. A great movie by Protestant Ray Comfort explains ua-cam.com/video/U0u3-2CGOMQ/v-deo.html
3. Scientists, secular scholars and theologians will continuously move the goalposts in this argument to divert your attention from these facts. They propagate ideas that are not scientific or proven to assert Darwinian evolution. If we are able to always come back to the above points and their understanding and proof, we can show with confidence how much their argument is based on assumptions and not scientific fact. There are over 500 scientists whom have publicly acknowledged their doubt in Darwinian evolution. This in itself demonstrates it is a highly contentious discipline and not endorsed by the whole scientific community. evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/
Sorry Dean
But this is just a deluded waffle of words with plenty of strawman arguments and plenty of arguments from ignorance.
Can you submit any EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to falsify the ToE?
Captain Gaza, A little underwhelming response, but seeing as though you will not be able to provide any scientific proof yourself, let's begin with this shall we.
Mutation - natural selection
Here is how macro evolution is supposed to happen.
On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. Icons of evolution : ua-cam.com/video/iKPSgFrI-EU/v-deo.html
Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on. Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter. Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed.
Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance. To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread ("sweep") through a population and stay (become "fixed"). To evolutionists, this idea has been essential for so long that it is called a "classic sweep", "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population."
Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans, and reported their findings in the journal Science. "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations". "In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years." Evolutionists had identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome", and they expected that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps." So what did they find? "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings". Sweeps "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years." --Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924.
35 year SCIENCE EXPERIMENT
A 35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation. They wrote that "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations".
"Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." -- Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.
You may have heard of the famous Lenski experiment. Dr. Richard E. Lenski is an evolutionary biologist who began a long-term experiment on February 24, 1988 that continues today. It looks for genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of Escherichia coli bacteria that have been adapting to conditions in their flasks for over 60,000 generations. His work has been simplified in a report by Scott Whynot, who studied 26 peer-reviewed scientific articles authored by Dr. Lenski (with others) published between 1991 and 2012. These papers represent the major genetic findings from 21 years of the experiment.
1. There was an insertion mutation that inhibited transcription of DNA involved in cell wall synthesis.
2. There was an insertion mutation in a regulatory region that encodes two proteins involved with cell wall synthesis. This may have led to larger cells.
3. A mutation in a gene led to a defect in DNA repair.
4. An insertion mutation may have knocked out a gene involved in programmed cell death and response to stress.
5. There was another mutation in a gene involved in response to stress, disrupting its function.
6. There was a mutation in the gene that encodes an enzyme that loosens DNA coils, leading to an increase in DNA supercoiling.
7. There was an insertion mutation in a gene that represses the production of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), a molecule that participates in many metabolic reactions, some affecting longevity. This might allow more NAD production.
8. The researchers noted an insertion mutation that they think inactivated a gene, resulting in greater glucose uptake. Glucose is a limited energy source in the experiment.
9. Deletion mutations caused the loss of the ability to catabolize D-ribose, an energy source that is not available in the experiment.
10. There was a mutation in a gene regulating transport of the sugar maltose, an energy source that is not present in the experiment.
11. After about 30,000 generations, the E. coli in one of the twelve isolated populations began to utilize an energy source, citrate, that they normally could not use in the presence of oxygen. E. coli already have the ability to transport and metabolize citrate where there is no oxygen, but they do not produce an appropriate transport protein for an environment with oxygen. In E. coli DNA, the gene for the citrate transporter that works without oxygen is directly upstream from genes for proteins with promoters that are active in the presence of oxygen. A replication of the region happened to put the transporter gene next to one of these promoters, so it could now be expressed in the presence of oxygen.
Except for number 11, the changes found in over 60,000 generations of bacteria were due to the disruption, degradation, or loss of genetic information. The ability to use citrate in the presence of oxygen, trumpeted by evolutionists as a big deal, was the result of previously existing information being rearranged, not the origin of new information. Mutations that result in a gain of novel information have not been observed.
"Most long-term evolution experiments thus far have been performed in bacteria or haploid yeast populations, where, in most environments, there exist a number of loss-of-function mutations that provide a selective advantage." "For instance, sterility in yeast provides a selective advantage by eliminating unnecessary gene expression." "The emergence of the Cit+ phenotype is the exception in experimental evolution, where most evolved mutations affect independent genes and biological pathways, driven largely by large-target loss-of-function mutations."-- Lang, Gregory I., Michael M. Desai. 2014. The spectrum of adaptive mutations in experimental evolution. Genomics, Vol. 104, No. 6, Part A, pp. 412-416.
To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.
Dean.
Sorry to disappoint you but it seems you've been bamboozeled by your own BS. That was quite the Gish Gallop!!!
Let's simplify.
We are not even going to refer to the Theory of Evolution or mutations or genetic drift or anything over your head.
Firstly, let me ask you
Do you ACCEPT that things CHANGE OVER TIME?
How about you provide some so called evidence we can dissect and expose for what it is, philosophy, instead of redundant rhetoric and nonsensical self indulgent verbal diarrhea. How bout you start with the presented data, then we move onto the Cambrian, and Chromosome 2.
Dean.
I asked you a simple question that's not that difficult for your pip to absorb. Let's keep it simple for your sake.
Do you ACCEPT that things CHANGE OVER TIME???
A simple yes or no will suffice.
We can get to the nitty gritty later.
Prof. Derek Ager of the University at Swansea, Wales, in Proc. Geol. Assoc. Vol. 87, p. 132 (1976) has stated
"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea to Carruther's Raphrentis delanouei, have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive."
The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people-until it is examined quantitatively, that is!
For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare-not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!
moron.
Epic Moron
@Mr. Giggles Get an education kid and come back.
Evolution is today’s secular religion. Evolutionists have their own creation story (abiogenesis), holy books (On the Origin of Species, The God Delusion), priesthood (Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins), seminaries (universities), and houses of worship (atheist “mega-church” movement).
So many dislikes?
Welcome evolutionists, to a catholic video.
One can’t be a catholic and a evolutionist at the same time
That's funny, your Pope is quite comfortable with the fact of evolution.
Anyone who denys evolution and the big bang denys mountains of scientific evidence. There is no conflict at all between our faith and these mechanisms by which God uses to create. Let us not simplify the ways of our God. Also as a recent philosophy grad i feel I can confidently say that there is no conflict between philosophical reasoning and evolutionary theory.
Tell that to the Church
@@bobbywoodson5326 give me your evidence then, you fucking bitch
I agree Father. The real big bang is not from guns and explosives. The big bang theory as I experienced is the True Gift of holy love given to us by God the Father through the Holy Trinity. Unfortunately, satan and his legions always try to steal true love. In the final judgement they will lose if they do not repent and make Amens
Patricia Megbuniwe the brainwash is real
+Timothy Reilly evolution is a lie
You realize that there is literally no scientific evidence supporting evolution.
Yes and what is science
This sermon has been thought provoking, and I should like to add some more provocation to this.
1 - It is curious to note that Cain had a wife, but she was never mentioned as a daughter of Adam and Eve. So too did Seth find a wife as well, under the same conditions. The Bible's silence on this is not definitive by any stretch of the imagination, but it is interesting to imagine.
Not only that, but recall that the penalty for eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was that we would ''surely die'. That this was a spiritual death might perhaps imply that Eve was the mother of all biological homo sapiens to whom God had gifted an intellective soul (as opposed to the sensitive soul of the animal, or the vegetative soul of the plant). No proof there, just something to ponder.
2 - Approximately 70,000 years ago (creationists, please, humour me), the population of homo sapiens became perilously low. As in, no more than a few thousand. This was due to a posited natural disaster. What this means is that modern humans are amongst the least genetically diverse species on planet Earth. Surely, this indicates that monogenesis of the soul is at least biologically possible.
3 - We are indeed dust, and the priest unfortunately neglects to consider this on the individual, everyday level (and the ultimate level too). Starting broad, assuming the evolutionary hypothesis to be true, the first living things were formed from chemicals, which were themselves likely formed from the dust of the earth poured out through deep ocean thermal vents. Even for every one of us today, we still come from dust. All the hydrogen comes from water, oxygen from the air and water, carbon from the air and the dust, and nitrogen from the dust. When we breath our last, all the water and dust returns to the ground. I really don't see the issue here.
4 - The perfect comes from the Latin word 'perfectare', meaning 'to complete'. In this case, it means to be complete and finished. But what does that mean, and on what level do we look? Are we looking at species? Is a cat, insofar as it is a cat, a perfect cat, and insofar as it has a mutation (e.g. albino), an imperfect cat? Are we looking more broadly? Is an animal, insofar as it has a sensitive soul and the abilities associated with animals, a perfect animal, regardless of whether it's a cat or a dog or something else besides? Of course, the change from plant to animal, and from animal to man, depends on a different kind of soul with different powers. So I make no opposition to the suggestion that we need a miracle there. But the first human soul, even though born from parents with a sensitive soul, would not need to be immaculately conceived, for the simple difference in soul kind would not have transmitted sin.
5 - Death is not evil, nor contrary to God. Otherwise, He wouldn't have died for us. Also, by pronouncing the penalty of death for Adam and Eve if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it implies that death was already there, and already known. Why legislate a penalty if you didn't want it to be there?
6 - Who's to say that the Garden of Eden was even in this universe? We know Heaven must have a material component, as our Lord and our Lady are both there bodily, along with Elijah, St Joseph, and Moses (if I recall correctly). We can posit that Hell has a material component as well, as I believe pious tradition does hold that Judas was bodily taken to Hell (ouch). Therefore, we can easily postulate a separate realm in which our first parents entered, a sort antechamber for this one, in which they were tested. Their decision there affected this universe that would be put in to. I'm basing myself here off of Dante's Purgatorio, which places Eden at the pinnacle of the Mount of Purgatory.
Apologies for writing so much, but I do enjoy asking questions. I do have my own thoughts on these (and I would tend to disagree with the overarching drive of the priest's sermon), but I'm interested in what others say too.
His points on science being used a basis of morality though, I completely agree. Evolution can work in science, but its rubbish theology and philosophy (principle of non-contradiction, anyone?).
God love you all. ^_^
Evolution is bad science. I sat down to study it years ago and spent two years reading all the books I could, both for and against it. The counter arguments seemed credible, but the hardest thing for me to get past was, if evolution were wrong, why did so many smart people and scientists believe it? Eventually, I realized that as a work of science evolution was almost useless because it made no predictions, and as a theory, it was not falsifiable, but as a mythology, it was a wonderful creation myth that could "explain" the world without the need for God. That's when it became clear to me that evolution was believed not because of it's scientific merits, but because it provided a way for people to remove God from their lives. That's why evolutionists are so hateful to people who disagree with them. You are touching a scar, a wound, in their psyches that they were able to cover up with the mythology, and to them, criticizing the theory is a direct attack on themselves, because it brings back the knowledge, the awareness (that's what your psyche is, an awareness), of the thing they were trying to deny - that they have a responsibility to their maker and they will be held morally accountable for their actions.
Good Pro-evolution Book
Darnwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel C Dennet - this book is good because while most evolutionists are dishonest on this point, Dennett admits that if you accept the premise of biological evolution, you must admit that the same principle that "creates" design in biological life, must also be at work in everything else in the universe. Hence, Darwin's idea is "dangerous" in the sense that, if it is true, and Dennet believes it is, that evolution governs not only life, but everything.
Basically, if you're going to be intellectually honest, you can't be Catholic and an evolutionist, because they are mutually exclusive ideas.
Good Book Against Evolution
Icons of Evolution Book by Jonathan Wells - this book is good because it shows the long series of hoaxes in the history of evolutionary science which, even though they have been admitted by scientists, the hoaxes have not been made well known to the public. Each generation is raised on a hoax, and when that hoax is proven false 20 to 40 years later, the damage has already been done, and a new hoax is put in place.
Basically, the author shows that even scientists themselves know how weak the evidence for evolution really is because so many of them have created false evidence to support it.
moron.
Smart!
Well said Duke 😃
Amen, amen well said Father and there is no better way than the way you describe the so-called “Evolution: The Religion of the Anti-Christ”. God be praised for the gift of excellent and powerful preaching that He has given to you. Amen!
I am getting ready to come into the church during the Easter vigil. I don't consider myself a traditional catholic. I only simply consider myself catholic in the purest defenition of the word. As someone who recently graduated with a degree in philosophy I have to say that evolution is completely coherent from a philosophical sense. Also I feel denying mountains of scientific evidence both for evolution and the big bang theory is just embarrassing for us as a church today. It's why many of those in my generation reject Christianity as a whole today as they consider it to be anti scientific. There is no conflict whatsoever with excepting the theory of evolution and the big bang theory just as long as one realizes that these are mechanisms by which God chooses to create and they bring glory and honor to him. Let us not simply our faith and our God by trying to simplify the mechanisms by which God uses to create.
The younger gens stay away from the Church because the dont want to stop sinning. Lie to yourself and others and ruin contrition...
GREAT VIDEO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
Oh sorry, we actually have seen evolution in numerous instances, in well-documented cases where the evolution of new traits occurs under observation. I can give you links if you're interested.
Sure. Thanks.
Epic Michael
Here are two. It's not hard to find examples of evolution happening literally in front of us. Why should I not believe these trained scientists?
phys.org/news/2010-09-scientists-evolution-action.html
phytokeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=1432
Thanks for the links i did read the articles and here are my thoughts:
From the article in the 1st link: The yellow-bellied three-toed skink (Saiphos equalis) is one of only three reptiles known to have different methods of reproduction in different places. It appears these lizards reproduce in an amazing variety of ways. Some lay eggs (oviparity) and some bear live young (viviparity). However many types of lizard (including S. equalis) originally had the capacity for both reproductive modes.There’s no evidence S. equalis is abandoning oviparity. No oviparous populations of S. equalis are showing signs of changing reproductive mode. There is a difference in reproductive mode between populations that appears to be related to differences in climate, but individual skinks are stable; they don’t change reproductive mode throughout their lifetimes even when climates change. Researchers have observed no sign that skinks (or other creatures) have acquired or are acquiring completely new physiologies or behaviors that weren’t already latent in them. Thus not proof of evolution but of adaptation. No proof that something "new" was introduced into the species that it didn't already have.
From the article in the 2nd link: Polyploidization plays an important role in species formation as chromosome doubling results in strong reproductive isolation between derivative and parental taxa. Most multicellular organisms are ‘diploid’, having two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent, but sometimes organisms can have extra sets of chromosomes-this is called polyploidy. Polyploidy is common in plants, especially in cultivated plants. Different species of coffee plant have 88, 66, 44, and 22 chromosomes. Note that they are all still called coffee. Some strawberries are octoploid, having eight sets of chromosomes rather than the original two sets, but they are still strawberries.A polyploid plant will usually not be able to breed with the parent species, and can consistently produce offspring with the same number of chromosome sets as itself. This can then be considered a new species. Note that there is no new genetic information involved, just repetition of existing information. By analogy, if a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be printed with every page doubled, there would be no new information, just repetitious doubling of the existing information. No proof that something "new" was introduced into the species that it didn't already have.
Epic Michael 'Adaptation' is the only thing needed; evolution always modifies traits that already exist. Once the lizards become isolated you'll have two populations with different modes of reproduction.
But the only thing needed for new traits is to simply mutate a duplicated gene - the moment that happens you have new information, as in our own case: www.scripps.edu/news/press/2012/20120503polleux.html
That's all that's necessary for evolution; and we can literally watch it happen with Mimulus.
Beautiful Sermon. Never heard like this before. Thank you
This is great to keep in mind, I am starting a course inEvolution thank you.
I greatly respect when this priest speaks on psychology, sociology, and things of the purely human order. I respect him when he speaks on the sacraments, on Catholic theology, on history, on philosophy.
But on evolution, he shares much in common with the fundamentalist Protestant preacher, a very disreputable character.
Bookmarking 6:20 for Council of Cologne!
Mr.W. this priest as well as many people do understand evolution, its just that they disagree with the superstitious & evil religion & excuse that evolution really is. Like the speaker said, you can not give what you dont have. Matter cannot arise out of nothing without a being that is infinitely superior to matter. Emperical science can only speak about measurement, if its not doing that, then its pseudo science which evolution is used as. When evolution is used as a pseudo science its for the sake & excuse for expidiancy money &/or power. Evolution is a religion where only men with power qualify as gods in which they formulate their own ethics & interpretation of the world in oder to control, lie,cheat, steal, & murder. The 1st evolutionist was satan then adam & eve. however, adam& eve repented. Evolution is about disobidience "i will not serve", evolution has nothing to do with measurement.The concept & idea of evolution is as old as man, the word "evolution" is in the context of history, new. Evolution is about disobidience for the hatred & destruction of man. Emperical science can only be about measurement & numerical quantity. a measurement that is capable of being reproduced.
God is omnipotent. He can create a world with a snapping of His fingers or slowly. He is also the Truth and the Ruler of time. And since He acts in a hidden way, He is more likely to have created man by using evolution or sth like this. The problem is using the evolution for anti-God propaganda. What do you think about this ?
Modern scientists mostly do not behave like Three Kings ... that's why they do not reconcile science with God.
🙏🕊AMEN 🕊🙏
If creation was left alone i guess i'd believe devolution would be more natural. look around you. stupidity happens. if the divine left us alone, we'd be gone.
A science and yet never been observed,
Oh Please God hasten your Second Coming to this degenerate world so The Truth may be known by all.
Looks like your prayers were unanswered. Just as expected from a fictional god.
We shouldn't criticize Pope Benedict. Like Pope John Paul II, he is surrounded by demons who would not listen to Truth. Including the real Truth of Christina Gallagher ' s messages from Heaven that have been distorted by people who are afraid that they are wrong about their own man-made religions stemming from Pride. I think it's nice that Pope Benedict extends his blessings and spiritual sufferings for those who are unbelievers. Who knows, maybe Steven Hawkins will get Baptized and learn to thank God for his sufferings and realize that Jesus suffers with him on the cross of life here on earth. In heaven, we will be made perfect through the Sacrament of confession or reconciliation. All things are possible for God! He wants us to be hesled through humility, confesduon, pray and most of all love! But that picture of that guy in the newspaper with an Italian name, though he doesn't look italian (?) Scares me! I'm getting a good education here at home from Great Priests like you Father! God Bless you forever!
If the theory of evolution is true, then where are all the species between man and ape?
The species between man and ape went extinct in order to become us, they transitioned into us.
I Reject those evil theories of evolution in Jesus' s Holy Name. However, that one theory you mentioned about our one true God, Creator, having made mankind and choosing one man and woman to follow His Laws of love (and we know from our history what original sin caused by the ancient serpent and their disobedience) could hold truth? How did mankind end up looking so different from one another? Real beauty is in the souls of Catholic Believers through the Holy Spirit Which is the Spirit of Love emanating from the Father and Son!
What about fossils? You can argue evolution's evidence based on comparative anatomy or genetics saying that simmilar designs mean same designer, but when you have fossils at different levels in thre ground, showing different stages of evolution, how can you argue that?
I admire the priest and love his sermons, but the phrase "big bang" stands for an expansion, not for an explosion. In Humani generis, Pius XII did let experts study the idea that the human body evolved from preexisting matter. Father says that the theory of evolution is nonphilosophical. Then he seems to forget that the human soul is what makes a body a human one and a person a human one. So creatures with nonhuman souls wouldn't nonhuman. So if I Adam's body became human because God put a human soul into it, then Adam and Eve are still our first parents and polygenism is still false.
Young-earth creationists believe that fossil record gaps disprove the theory of evolution. But if they would read the Catholic Encyclopedia's article about creation is not a change. To create, God causes his creatures to exist while they do exist, even if they always have existed and even if they always will exist. He's constantly giving them their existence to sustain them. So in their theological senses, the verbs "to create" and "to conserve" mean the same thing. Like people, cats, dogs, chimps, trees, planets, and even natural processes are God's creatures. If I'm right, and if populations evolve by natural selection, then evolution presupposes creation. If God weren't creating, there would be no fossil record gaps because there would be nothing at all.
I'm not an evolutionist. I'm not a young earth creationist either because I don't know what to be. My point is that I think Father oversimplified scientifically and philosophically.
Here's a link to the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm
Here's a link to an article about the big bang.
profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/history-of-the-universe/big-bang-expansion-not-explosion/
What about old earth Creationist
@@ShaNaNa242 It seems to me that however old the earth it, it still needs God to make it exist, even if it has always existed and always will exist.
The fruits of evolution: The destruction of immortal souls.
"I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them." Charles fuckin Darwin
Saint Paul spoke of these times when he preached about itching ears, when people would no longer accept sound doctrine but would set the Truth aside to believe myths. Evolution is a myth, it has NEVER been observed that a creature produces a creature other than its own kind. It has never been observed that a lower creature adds dna and becomes a higher creature. Big bang is simply another myth for arrogant men to believe. It has Never been observed that any kind of explosion produces anything other than chaos. I though the greatest of sinners have seen creatures namely birds created out of nothing before my very eyes from GOD. I have also seen the Blood of Christ appear in an empty chalice. With trembling I swear I speak the Truth.
what's the name of the priest?
I agree with this Father about evolution, relativism, and anything against Church teaching; but he is doom and gloom towards credible theories "of attempts" to explain our origin. I thinks he hurts his own credibility concerning his doom and gloom outlook on his interpretation of doubtful thoughts. He has a condescending attitude towards man, God, and science. He is wrong; spreading error, about the Church's stance on "many Adams" (poly-Adams). He also has a negative definition about disorder and the definition of creation. He is showing that he has very little understanding of the relationship between God and science. After attacking Darwinism and physical evolution alike, WHICH HE SHOULD AND DOES A GOOD JOB, he then turns on science and then the Church. He should just condemn the Vatican for embracing some scientific thought and theories that he disagrees with, too; which i think he did.
I fail to see the connection between the error of evolution theory and astronomical science? Annnd uh, wasn’t “Big Bang” theorized by a Catholic priest?
wonderful, there is a you tuber goes by trey smith...man does he prove creation .....my dad a creational supporter would say "if they can make a fairy tail out of Genesis, then they shall try to make a fairy tail out of the rest of the bible"
Nothing comes from nothing
Because they are actually... true? People should reject Scientism as they should reject Fideism.
Have you watched this?
UA-cam "THE FAMOUS ATHEIST WHO BELIEVES IN GOD AND MIRACLES"
It is Dr Ricardo Castanon PhD.
Also watch "The Shroud of Turin: A Scientific View" on UA-cam.
Recently the Turin Shroud has been discovered to contain the same DNA as every single known Eucharistic Miracle AND the Holy Sudarium of Valencia Cathedral
Anyone who rejects the scientific method doesn't know how the process of science works.
Zachary Griffin Scientism is not science.
El Canal de Shackra
I don't know what scientism is but the scientific method works. It is the only way to accurately describe the universe.
Zachary Griffin
You just defined what scientism is.
HISTORICAL - NOT EMPIRICAL, JOHN H. HORNER "...paleontology is a historical science, a science based on circumstantial evidence, after the fact. We can never reach hard and fast conclusions in our study of ancient plants and animals... These days it's easy to go through school for a good many years, sometimes even through college, without ever hearing that some sciences are historical or by nature inconclusive." Dinosaur Lives, 1997, p.19
7:33 - Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae, right?
So what if everything that you claim evolution cannot do actually were a well-documented reality? Would you reconsider your beliefs?
To quote the Spartans:
If.
Wait, this is a Catholic sermon? I thought the Pope accepted evolution. Doesn't that imply that the Catholic Church's official position is that evolution is true?
Not at all, not everything a pope believes is an infallible teaching of the Church which every catholic is bound to accept. That is a very common misconception. Putting that aside, catholics are not obligated to believe in evolution anymore than they are obligated to believe in UFOs.
+occasionalskeptic There are very few Roman Catholics who accept this heresy being professed by the sermon. Pope Pius XII said "There is no conflict between the theory of evolution and the Catholic Religion."
davitz77
However, Pius was not saying that all catholics should believe in the evolution theory.
sylmarmusic2012 , This is true, but it is still against Catholic teaching to claim Evolution is Satanic.
davitz77 Not really because church leaders have not declared it to be a doctrine of the Church. It is merely an opinion some hold. No catholic is bound to believe in evolution. When I say it is satanic, I'm simply expressing a personal opinion.
Try reading genetics first. You will sound more believable.
+Happy63funny I for my part have read a bit genetics.
Did you know that Cavalli-Sforza, a famous geneticist, who is also an evolutionist, during his studies had a problem with the "laws of Mendel", which I, as learning them from a creationist mother, never had? Obvious, since laws of Mendel show that there is a finite and definite number of chromosomes for each kind of being (less so for plants, where the number can be multiplied by different powers of two, or even by six, and where infertile forms with uneven numbers also exist), which is one major hurdle for evolution theory.
Terribly un-orthodox catholic video, which is based on the silly perspective that nature is separate from grace. Sorry, but De Lubac was right , Theology and Philosophy are one. This video strengthens Catholicism's enemies, so much for Faith and Reason.
Natey Reb sorry that your so willing to bow to these corrupt scientific communities but God declared he made man himself not from another beast
SM
We still have more Popes and saints on our side remember.
And Pope Pius Xll did not endorse it but accepted discussion about it to most likely overrun it afterwards once and for all.
Are you seriously trying to indict a children's TV show about apes? Ahahaha! Priceless.
evolution has never been observed because it takes place over MILLIONS of years.
Are you immortal?
+Joshua “StarParty” Joestar it is taking place right now , go back to sleep !
Please stop this. This kind of talk made me run from the church when I was young.
if you believe in evolution - ask yourself- why scientists with all their "power" have not made a single cell of life! even though they know what all the parts of a cell are. If they can't even make ANY life - look around to see the miracle of God. All creation came through the word. Jesus. If you don't believe ask him in humility and he will show you the truth. Do not be like pontious pilate and ask " truth? what is that? " and walk away
Dan dare I don't believe in evolution. Evolution is not my religion.
you clearly don't even know what evolution refers to lol. You're referring to "AbioGenesis".
***** Dan dare you both sound ignorant.
Unclenate1000 they confuse all the terms because they are ignorant. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. The bible is infallibale in its teachings of morality not its teaching of science.
Evolution isn't science fiction. It is a scientific theory with as much evidence for it as gravity.
Zachary Griffin. evolution is a religion for homosexual survial of strongest&fitest weaker genes r elimated female gene would not survive if this theory was correct only God can create a female
Will unsubscribe from the channel because of this nonsensical sermon.
This is the worst take on evolution I've ever heard in my life. Not one time in this video do you even define what evolution is correctly. It's over 20 minutes of arguing from ignorance.
All I see is a straw man and a poor grasp of the theory. Good premise poor execution.
Evolution is true religion is manade
This is so wrong, if theology is above the other sciences, then the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around the earth.
+Wade Tripp what if this is actually so?
+Wade Tripp yes what if it does...that'll blow your mind
+Epic Michael Not sure what do you mean "What if it does... that'll blow your mind" What if something illogical is true?
What is "illogical" about Earth staying in centre of universe and Sun moving around it?
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Because it is not. The center of mass for the solar system is the Sun. The center of the Milky Way Galaxy is not the center of the Earth.
Americans.