Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
note to self, when everything starts spinning and falls off the earth , its not that long awaited pole flip…
 
From the context of his post, it seems he falls into the “there’s no practical use for evolution” camp. Since in his post he seems to suggest that prior to NASA using the knowledge of gravity, it was an idea not yet confirmed.

If I am correct on that assumption, then he would be ignoring that evolution has been ‘used’ in a similar manner when it comes to the selective breeding of plants and animals to maje better crops, livestock, and man’s best friend. In other words, such and argument would be based in a lack of understanding about the subject.
 
mVitus said:
would be ignoring that evolution has been ‘used’ in a similar manner when it comes to the selective breeding of plants and animals to maje better crops, livestock, and man’s best friend. In other words, such and argument would be based in a lack of understanding about the subject.
Click to expand...
Better crops? I think not. “The USA corp” wheat breeding (multiple hybridization) program now means that wheat has a higher Glycaemic Index number than white sugar, In what way is that better? It has led to a type 2 diabetic crisis in the human population
 
so what is the GI of sugar and what is the GI of different wheat varietals.

and just what is GI.
 
Uriel1 said:
No Rose, The law of Gravity was a physics theory bur is now used to send spaceships on orbital trajectories and maintain satellites in their orbits. It has been tested and proven which makes it a law.
Click to expand...
Again, no it doesn’t.

I’d like to know what your credentials in science are.
 
Last edited:
Fauken said:
40.png
Uriel1:
No Rose, The law of Gravity was a physics theory bur is now used to send spaceships on orbital trajectories and maintain satellites in their orbits. It has been tested and proven which makes it a law.
Click to expand...
Again, no it doesn’t.

I’d like to know what your credentials in science are.
Click to expand...
Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

You simply have no discernment. Do you really think we send up spaceships based on a theory, or perhaps based on a law?

Caritate non ficta
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
You simply have no discernment. Do you really think we send up spaceships based on a theory, or perhaps based on a law?
Click to expand...
Yes I do. Because a theory is not what you think it is. Please answer my question. What is your background in science?
 
No, @fauken my friend, the context of this was someone claiming that the theory of evolution had some equivalence with the gravitational theory. The comparison of Evolution with Gravity is a completely false analogy which is why we can correctly predict what will happen when we send a spaceship to slingshot around a Jovian moon, but still cannot demonstrate one species evolving into another. Gravity has indeed become a law, and Evolutionists pretend it’s just theory to claim false equivalence for the failed hypothesis of evolution

And to be precise, what I said was this,
"Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.
_You simply have no discernment. _
Do you really think we send up spaceships based on a theory, or perhaps based on a law"?

Caritate non ficta
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
Gravity has indeed become a law
Click to expand...
No, it has not. Gravity is a fact, yes, but it is a theory. You know Newton’s laws of motion aren’t perfect themselves, but we still call them laws. They are not the absolute, “this-is-how-forces-must-work” end all. So long as they don’t deal with objects at the quantum or celestial bodies level, they’re fine.

Am I right in assuming your background doesn’t extend farther than what you learned in high school, or maybe some basic ones for non-STEM majors in college?
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
Caritate non ficta
Click to expand...
You throw this phrase around quite a bit (in this and other threads). What is your understanding of it? Is it part of your reply, or is it your signature?
 
Last edited:
Roseeurekacross said:
so what is the GI of sugar and what is the GI of different wheat varietals.

and just what is GI.
Click to expand...
This science is within my field of expertise so let me help you;
Glycemic Index can be thought of as a number which indicates the rapidity and volume of release of glucose into the bloodstream. The higher the number the worse for your health, Wholemeal bread is 72 and white sugar is 59. The problem for health is that rapid high glucose loads predispose to diabetes through increased insulin resistance, That bread is now worse than sugar, is the result of profiteering by the hybridization teams resulting in an eight fold increase in yield.
 
Are you trolling? I’m starting to think youre trying to get a rise out of people
 
The way I learned it, scientific laws describe, usually in mathematical terms, while scientific theories explain (or attempt to). They are different things, and a theory does not become a law no matter how much evidence it accumulates.

In the case of gravity, we have both. The law of gravitation is the math Newton worked out to show that the gravitational force between bodies varies depending on their masses and the distance between them. Newton’s equation is not The Whole Truth Forever in Every Circumstance, but it works in ordinary circumstances.

The various theories of gravity are the attempts to explain the mechanism by which the gravitic force works. “”Mass bends space and time” and “masses exchange graviton particles” are examples. Any proper scientific theory makes predictions that can be tested or implies measurable evidence that can be looked for.
 
Usagi said:
Any proper scientific theory makes predictions that can be tested or implies measurable evidence that can be looked for.
Click to expand...
You are right @usagi, and my specific gripe is that the Evolutionists will say “Gravity is only a theory too,” ; the difference is that Gravitational Theory makes testable predictions whereas Evolution cannot do that as it is a mere hypothesis
 
What is your alternative theory?

@Uriel1, you may have your private opinions, but the Catholic Church has been clear in the last century, including the last 5 or 6 popes, that a Catholic can accept evolution as an explanation for the development of organisms, and even of the human body.

This really shouldn’t be in Apologetics. Someone ought to move it to the water cooler forum (or whatever it’s called).

No Catholic needs to defend his or her beliefs against evolution, for a Catholic can accept evolution.

Don’t waste your time, people. You can be Catholic and accept evolution. There is absolutely NO threat. Aquinas would be turning in his grave.
 
Last edited:
Uh-huh. You realize that people devote entire scientific careers to matters rooted in evolution, right? Are they studying nothing at all?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top