A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
It will be a tragic disappointment on your behalf the day Darwin is debunked. As I have mentioned earlier, most of your work and meaning of evolution will be thrown out by you’re self.Well, my doctoral examination committee disagrees with you, as they awarded me the PhD. degree in history in 1993. What are your qualifications to comment on this issue?
However, as to your other point, evolution has been strengthened cumulatively since 1859, and is now a far stronger explanation of species diversity than it was when Darwin first proposed it in his Origin of Species. You are right to say that we are not apes; Homo sapiens and the apes descend from a common ancestor about five million years ago.
StAnastasia
Going to be a good read.
Why do you think the year Darwin was born has anything to do with whether the ideas he discovered and wrote about are true?
You don’t seem to have any problem accepting the ideas of people writing several thousand years B.C.Variation within species is OK with Catholic teaching.
There is no such thing as “macro-evolution” or “micro-evolution”. Variation within, and adaptation of, species is evolution.
VisionaryOne, I infer from the quality of your writing that you are relatively unacquainted with education beyond the elementary level. That in itself will make constructive dialogue between us challenging. Perhaps we should bid each other adieu at the outset of this conversation.
You are absolutely right! Even St. Augustine of Hippo questioned a literal 6-day creation. As did Origen.
The ideas people have written several thousand years ago were for that time only. Darwin suggests his ideas criss cross the whole of human creation. Do you seriously expect me to believe in such a man claiming he has unlocked the secret to the meaning of life.Why do you think the year Darwin was born has anything to do with whether the ideas he discovered and wrote about are true?
I have seen it all before. People such as you’re self pretending to know it all and frown down upon those that challenge them. If you are unable to debate because your only prove are the words of an atheist then I can concur that you are equally unqualified and gullible in such a matter. My words maybe too strong for you to adjust to but when it comes to understanding I am more open minded then you would have to guess.
Then the article wasn’t about evolution. Interesting that you tried to prove your knowledge in that post with the mention of your background, but got a basic definition of the subject wrong.
6-day creation is how men understand the meaning of building. What ever God makes it is always out of our time but made in our time for our illogical minds to comprehend and understand.
John, do you not accept Genesis, where the author has God say “Let the earth bring forth living beings”?
True, but it automatically proves that evolutionary theory is not an explanation – this gives more room for an alternative like ID.
Exactly right. It’s very much the same as all of St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs of the existence of God – none of them give proof of the nature of the Blessed Trinity. They’re meant to show the existence of a divine, supreme being.
In terms of evolutionary science, how do these two scientists distinguish between theistic evolution and atheistic evolution? What, precisely, is “theistic” about their version of natural selection operating on mutations? Did God create the mutations? If so, what evidence do they use to show that? If God had nothing to do with evolution, then what does the term “theistic evolution” mean (as opposed to “atheistic evolution”)?
