Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
semper_catholicus said:
I do not trust the theories of evolution or the Big Bang. It seems ridiculous that we came from an ancestor inferior to us. That doesn’t seem to make sense metaphysically.
Click to expand...
So, Newton’s parents were better scientists than Newton, Mozart’s parents were better composers than Mozart and Usain Bolt’s parents could run faster than their son.

Your metaphysics seems to have a problem with reality here.

rossum
 
rossum said:
40.png
semper_catholicus:
I do not trust the theories of evolution or the Big Bang. It seems ridiculous that we came from an ancestor inferior to us. That doesn’t seem to make sense metaphysically.
Click to expand...
So, Newton’s parents were better scientists than Newton, Mozart’s parents were better composers than Mozart and Usain Bolt’s parents could run faster than their son.

Your metaphysics seems to have a problem with reality here.

rossum
Click to expand...
All those people are human.Comparing a monkey/ape to a human, is like comparing a tricycle to spaceship.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
But the rules of science rule out the supernatural.
Click to expand...
False, as we do not judge that which has no objectively-derived evidence against it. IOW, we cannot and do not discount the possibility of divine creation. Even Hawking and Harris don’t go that far if you read their books.
 
buffalo said:
Yes, many bought into it.
Click to expand...
Because that’s where the evidence takes us. If the overwhelming consensus of the leadership of the Church taught that one could not accept the basic ToE, I’d leave in a heartbeat, much like I left my fundamentalist Protestant church over their anti-science and racist orientation.
 
And the first exposure I had as a Protestant growing up that taught that “evilution” is anti-Bible that said otherwise was from a Catholic priest, and that was back in 1962.
 
BTW, one of the most revered Jewish scholars of all times, Moshe Maimonides (the RAMBAM), centuries ago wrote that much of the first twelve chapters of Genesis were largely allegorical, and he included the creation and fall accounts in his assessment and conclusions.
 
Metis1 said:
BTW, one of the most revered Jewish scholars of all times, Moshe Maimonides (the RAMBAM), centuries ago wrote that much of the first twelve chapters of Genesis were largely allegorical, and he included the creation and fall accounts in his assessment and conclusions.
Click to expand...
Yeah, so what?
 
Techno2000 said:
All those people are human.Comparing a monkey/ape to a human, is like comparing a tricycle to spaceship.
Click to expand...
We share about 98% of our d.n.a. with chimps, although they may feel offended if we say they’ere related to us.

In anthropology, as part of our education, we closely study their behavior, and they are so much like us in our behavior, let me tell ya.
 
Metis1 said:
And the first exposure I had as a Protestant growing up that taught that “evilution” is anti-Bible that said otherwise was from a Catholic priest, and that was back in 1962
Click to expand...
Evolution is anti-bible. Why do you think they came up with the non-overlapping magisteria?

Theistic evolution is attempting to deal with this by doubting the clear texts of Scripture. And get this - by man’s flawed provisional reasoning.
 
Metis1 said:
We share about 98% of our d.n.a. with chimps, although they may feel offended if we say they’ere related to us.

In anthropology, as part of our education, we closely study their behavior, and they are so much like us in our behavior, let me tell ya.
Click to expand...
No we do not. It is now less than 70%. In addition, the # of times they ran the sequencing was sub optimal. Then they used the human genome as the standard of comparison. Now with junk DNA debunked, it will get even more complicated.
 
He just might know a thing or two about the book of Genesis, that’s “so what?”.

To use Genesis as some sort of science or objective history book is simply silly as that’s clearly not its purpose. It is not at all objective, and even the use of many of the names used indicated symbolic meanings. It even has a cadence in Hebrew, much like other poetic forms, such as found in the Psalms and Proverbs.

The real importance of the creation accounts is all too often missed by those who use a literalistic approach as it is chock full of teachings that can all too easily be missed. It’s not the “history” that’s important-- it’s the morals and values taught within them. Whether Adam & Eve were real people is irrelevant today, but these teachings are VERY relevant.
 
I do not believe you you understand the scientific method. Anything proposed by the theory of evolution could be falsified if the fossil record contradicts a specific claim. Fossils ate an observable remnant of the ancient past, contrary to your claim that nothing can be observed. DNA testing or radiocarbon dating may be useful to further evaluate specific claims.

Citing the disproven claims of the original source is DIRECT evidence that particular claims are falsifiable!

The theory was less complete when the Origin of Man came out. A centuries worth of science has expanded, proven, and disproven different elements of it. Citing the 1800s theory as though nothing has changed since then is just ignorant
 
Metis1 said:
To use Genesis as some sort of science or objective history book is simply silly as that’s clearly not its purpose.
Click to expand...
You will have to take that up with Jesus Himself. He doubled down on it.
 
Metis1 said:
The real importance of the creation accounts is all too often missed by those who use a literalistic approach as it is chock full of teachings that can all too easily be missed. It’s not the “history” that’s important-- it’s the morals and values taught within them. Whether Adam & Eve were real people is irrelevant today, but these teachings are VERY relevant.
Click to expand...
Yes, in addition to. The Catholic Church and I use the literal reading of Scripture, together with long held Tradition and the support of the Magisterium.
 
buffalo said:
Evolution is anti-bible. Why do you think they came up with the non-overlapping magisteria?
Click to expand...
You are just fabricating stories that are in defiance of what the current Church teaches per the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” plus numerous papal pronouncements.

What some do, unfortunately, is to attach things to the basic ToE that either aren’t in it or are only hypotheses.
 
What is your scientific background, if any, and please produce links to peer-reviewed publications on this as well as Church pronouncements over the last 50 years that say as such.

BTW, are you really a Catholic, and I’m asking this not out of sarcasm but because you are simply putting stuff forward that is not only in opposition with the Church has been saying, including with PF, plus your position is much more in tune with fundamentalist Protestants, not Catholics? Yes, the Church says you have the option, but your posts negate that option for those who take a different position than you, which is why I’m wondering where you’re coming from.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top