Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benjamin1973 said:
At any rate, in the quoted passage, Darwin is saying that natural selection leads to increasingly complex organisms, something which is quite obviously supported by fossil chronology
Click to expand...
Actually, modern science is showing natural selection to be a conservative process not a creative one as once thought.
 
Why is evolution and origin of the universe constantly interwoven? Evolution doesn’t attempt to answer the question of our origin. That’s a separate topic altogether. There’s a lot of out of scope talk pulled into and lumped in with evolution.

Origin and creation are unknowns. Nobody knows. But we do know - with overwhelming evidence, that the earth, and later, life, evolved over an extremely long period of time.
 
Aloysium said:
Start speaking about creation, even if you think it happened by some evolutionary process, and you will sound less like an atheist.
Click to expand...
I have and, as a matter of fact, I also posted that the basic ToE does not in any way take divine creation out of the picture.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
In that case the Bible is not anti-evolution because the authors never intended to refute evolution.
Click to expand...
It was meant to show creation,God’s design and Providence.

Why do you and others have such an issue with admitting design? How does that affect your worldview?
Click to expand...
Have you forgotten so soon? I have always admitted that God designed man and all of creation. I just deny that it can be proven by the scientific method.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Have you forgotten so soon? I have always admitted that God designed man and all of creation. I just deny that it can be proven by the scientific method.
Click to expand...
Do you accept the special creation of man too?
Click to expand...
Yes, special in the sense that only man was created with an immortal soul. In the sense of mud turning directly onto man, no, I reject that “special” interpretation.
 
Uriel1 said:
Evolution is not a scientific law, nor a scientific theory
Click to expand...
If this has already been stated i apologize:

Scientific law is constructed by observing (in this case) the naural world. Scientific theory is an explanation of the observation.

Those without much understanding of the two, often errouneously conclude that theory is not of value, or is faulty.

Scientific theory is like historiography, in that historiography explains a historical event, but does not deny the event.
 
Law require no proof, they have just never been observed NOT to work…Theories have been extensively tested and these experiments can be reproduced. Arguably, Evolution HAS been tested in bacteria and the like (very short lifespans so evolution can be observed…)
 
benjamin1973 said:
Darwin is saying that natural selection leads to increasingly complex organisms, something which is quite obviously supported by fossil chronology.
Click to expand...
Really? How does natural selection lead to increasingly complex organisms. Clearly, obviously we are the crown of creation. Please provide some sort of explanation as to how natural selection had anything to do with that.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
what do you think he meant when he talked about life originally being “breathed into a few forms or into one”?
Click to expand...
He is mocking Abrahamic faiths while saying that it was natural selection tht is the cause of diversity and increasing complexity.
 
Natural Selection is the Goddidit of evolution. 😀 Yup - just leave everything to NS.

Except, we now know it doesn’t create, it conserves.
 
benjamin1973 said:
are all you die-hard opponents of Darwinism going to take the time actually to read the book,
Click to expand...
I know far more science than Darwin did. I’ve forgotten more than Darwin ever knew about the physical make-up of living organisms. A waste of time, but if you provide something from it that you consider worthwhile, state it. I will be glad to interpret it for you.

Getting ornery now, I should have gone out for lunch.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Did Adam look as God planned?
Click to expand...
I am of the opinion that God did not care about the look, which is to say the body plan. God’s amazing invention called evolution was sure to raise up a being which could think, love, and seek its creator. We could have just as easily emerged as hyper-intelligent octopuses. In that case, Jesus would have taken on the same flesh, like us in all things but sin.
 
Aloysium said:
He is mocking Abrahamic faiths while saying that it was natural selection tht is the cause of diversity and increasing complexity.
Click to expand...
No, I suspect that Darwin was admitting that he had no explanation for abiogenesis, the origin of life from nonliving matter. That was another of God’s amazing inventions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top