Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No offense taken. We are very close in points of view. As a boy i went to Mass 6 days a week and Benediction once growing up in a large family with enough but not too much. I feared and loved God. As my kids grew up I made a grave error and spent a fortune on private Catholic school fees to give them a better start, and the kids learned well, but about materialism too, which has become their false God.

They don’t even see a need to go to Mass. I know some of them will come round but it’s hard work, and a long road
 
Uriel1 said:
If kids through school are conditioned by secularists that there is no God, and if that’s what they believe the cool people think, that’s what most of them’ll think too.
Click to expand...
I challenge the implication that science teachers are inserting their atheistic beliefs into how they teach science. An atheist can make a good science teacher just like an atheist can make a good baseball player. It’s all about learning the rules of the game. In both baseball and science, God is not part of those rules.
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
You are wrong Alex; It It has never made any prediction which might be verified, other than suggesting in the first edition of Origin that a bear might evolve into a whale like creature, but Genetic homeostasis (I.M. Lerner) is a testable law which overwhelmingly speaks against Darwinist evolution from one species into another.

This renders Darwinism a failed hypothesis
Click to expand...
Correct, it is not empirically testable, that is observable, repeatable and predictable.

he Magician’s Twin - CS Lewis
A powerful must see video:

The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism

The Similarity Between Science and Magic
  1. Science as religion
  2. Science as credulity
  3. Science as power
Evolution is an alternative religion

idvolution.blogspot.com

The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis

The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism
idvolution.blogspot.com idvolution.blogspot.com
 
Shakuhachi said:
Science has discovered wondrous things about how God’s creation works. It only deepens my appreciation more for bothe science and creation.

The Genesis is not science. It is theology. Uriel, you seem to want to let theology influence science. That would only impede it.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, there are a few places to consider it tells us more.

For example, the very first line of Genesis is:

In the beginning (time)
God created the heavens (space)
and the earth (matter).

We have know this for a long long time. Science just recently confirmed it.
 
Happymom said:
The bible is NOT a science book!
Click to expand...
Science is knowledge.

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
“the world of science and technology”
synonyms: branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information, area of study, discipline, field
“the science of criminology”
a particular area of this.
plural noun: sciences
“veterinary science”
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
“the science of criminology”
synonyms: physics, chemistry, biology; More
 
YOu see there @buffalo if it were a true science book more would be written than ‘in the beginning’ and heavens (to say it is space is a disservice to heaven). We really don’t know what heaven is like or where it is until we get there and it may just be all around us…😉 And matter is the finite reality including that beyond earth. So you see the bible isn’t concerned with those things in as much as it is concerned with your soul. The bible is a spiritual book meant to help us get to heaven.Gods peace to you
 
Last edited:
Not sure exactly what your point is however we can never know all there is to know about God… Theology is the study of God. You wouldn’t find a bible in the science section of a book store you would find it in the aisles where theology and inspirational books would be located.
 
Happymom said:
YOu see there @buffalo if it were a true science book more would be written than ‘in the beginning’ and heavens (to say it is space is a disservice to heaven). We really don’t know what heaven is like or where it is until we get there and it may just be all around us…😉 And matter is the finite reality including that beyond earth. So you see the bible isn’t concerned with those things in as much as it is concerned with your soul. The bible is a spiritual book meant to help us get to heaven.Gods peace to you
Click to expand...
Yes, but there are areas of intersection. In these areas both are true. It is important we acknowledge these areas of intersect and not fall victim to our human flawed reasoning of our observations and science which by its own definition is provisional. Scripture and Tradition keep us grounded.
 
Happymom said:
Not sure exactly what your point is however we can never know all there is to know about God… Theology is the study of God. You wouldn’t find a bible in the science section of a book store you would find it in the aisles where theology and inspirational books would be located.
Click to expand...
So what… That is how we have classified them.
 
@buffalo What was your point in your above post?? That the bible is science? That sounds odd don’t you agree?
 
Last edited:
According to National Geographic, we share 96% of our genome with chimpanzees.

The human genome is composed of 3,234,830,000 base pairs (3.2 billiion). For a given side of the DNA molecule, there are four nucleic acids that could reside in each base pair “slot”. Therefore, the probability that the human genome could have randomly generated de novo and have the same DNA content as the chimpanzee just by chance can be expressed by the following:

(3234830000 * 0.96)^4 = 9,300,167,700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That is, it is a 1 in a 9.3 undecillion chance that humans could have developed a similar level of genetic content as the chimpanzee without having a common ancestor.

Those are some mighty long odds.
 
Last edited:
kkerwin1 said:
According to National Geographic, we share 96% of our genome with chimpanzees.

The human genome is composed of 3,234,830,000 base pairs (3.2 billiion). For a given side of the DNA molecule, there are four nucleic acids that could reside in each base pair “slot”. Therefore, the probability that the human genome could have randomly generated de novo and have the same DNA content as the chimpanzee just by chance can be expressed by the following:

(3234830000 * 0.96)^4 = 9,300,167,700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That is, it is a 1 in a 9.3 undecillion chance that humans could have developed a similar level of genetic content as the chimpanzee without having a common ancestor.

Those are some mighty long odds.
Click to expand...
It has fallen to below 70%. In addition the sequences are not the same. I would not use this argument any more.

Common design is a better explanation.
 
In science, a theory is defined as a tested hypothesis (informed opinion) that has been verified (proven). It is the best we have so far, not that it cannot be revised or even rejected if new evidence is presented which the theory cannot sufficiently explain. So the theory of evolution is a verified, confirmed hypothesis that is believed to be correct by nearly all scientists. Since science is a process (sometimes called “sciencing”), it is not a done deal as opposed to religion. Therefore, it is possible the theory of evolution will change or be discarded in the future.
 
Last edited:
Do you mean the theory of evolution is evolving? Perhaps so. That is what science is all about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top