Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[niceatheist]

I can’t quite sort out your objection here. First of all, all life does. Your creationist article you quoted is more of a rather silly attack on the fossil record and I’m specifically mentioning molecular data. Second of all all organisms are transitional.

 

[Glark]

Why would there have to be a practical purpose for any scientific statement?

But certainly the fact that all life is related can explain things like how viruses that originate in say, chickens, can laterally jump to pigs and from their to humans.
[/quote]
No, you’re wrong. It is not “the fact that all life is related” that is useful to science. For starters, it is not a “fact” that “all life is related” - it is merely a theory that can’t be tested. That being so, it is not the theory that “all life is related” that is useful to science - it is the fact there that genetic similarities exist between certain animals that is useful.

You need to separate the facts (genetic similarities) from a conclusion based on the facts (all life is realted) - the former is useful, the latter is useless.

The genetic similarities you speak of can also be explained by biblical Creation. So does this mean the theory of creation is useful to science? No … just as the theory that “all life is related” is not useful to science.

 

[niceatheist]

Nothing in evolution denies god any more than quantum mechanics denies god because it doesn’t attribute the angular momentum of electrons to angels

 

[Techno2000]

Those selfish genes. Just can’t stop 'em.

…even if they don’t where they’re goin’.

Evolution works in mysterious ways.

 

[niceatheist]

It has been tested. And it continues to be tested.

 

[Techno2000]

Nothing in evolution denies god any more than quantum mechanics denies god because it doesn’t attribute the angular momentum of electrons to angels

I think he means that the mind that evolution produced denies God.

 

[edwest211]

All organisms are transitional? That makes no sense at all. This was the last common ancestor of humans and apes?

Last common ancestor of humans and apes weighed about five kilograms

New research suggests that the last common ancestor of apes -- including great apes and humans -- was much smaller than previously thought, about the size of a gibbon. The findings, published today in the journal Nature Communications, are fundamental to understanding the evolution of the human...

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[edwest211]

Exactly right. And the only reason those who don’t believe in a supreme being post here is to get more converts for a secular belief system that promotes atheism. Electrons just created themselves? If that’s true then why bother us with regular, ongoing nonsense?

 

[Techno2000]

All organisms are transitional? That makes no sense at all. This was the last common ancestor of humans and apes?

Last common ancestor of humans and apes weighed about five kilograms: Ape ancestor was about the size of a gibbon -- ScienceDaily

Because fossils are so scarce, researchers do not know what the last common ancestors of living apes and humans looked like or where they originated.

 

[Rau]

A great deal of time in each doco is devoted to telling the viewer all about how such-and- such evolved - as if it matters.

Not that much time actually. But it seems to matter a great deal to you - the passion you have for declaring evolution a fraud and fantasy far exceeds the attention given to it by those with a different view.

 

[edwest211]

But… but… didn’t you read the article? It’s settled. One day, another baby ape appeared, the next day a hairless human creature appeared. Much harder to hide in trees and fields. If this was a science fiction story, I wouldn’t believe it.

 

[Glark]

new species of Green Warbler is still a new species. That is a perfectly good example of speciation, i.e. macroevolution.

And this is “evidence” that all life on earth evolved from bugs?

 

[Techno2000]

Glark:

A great deal of time in each doco is devoted to telling the viewer all about how such-and- such evolved - as if it matters.

Not that much time actually. But it seems to matter a great deal to you - the passion you have for declaring evolution a fraud and fantasy far exceeds the attention given to it by those with a different view.

Maybe its because evolution is crammed down our throats.

 

[edwest211]

No, no. Study the fictional evolution bush. We all started out in the water. Then, magically, gills were discarded for lungs, fins became legs…

I can’t finish. I need a stiff soda pop.

 

[edwest211]

Plenty of old links to that topic here. A lot. A lot of a lot.

 

[Rau]

The genetic similarities you speak of can also be explained by biblical Creation.

An appeal to God can replace anything!

 

[Rau]

Maybe its because evolution is crammed down our throat.

That you feel that way reflects - IMHO - hypersensitivity at least as much as it does reality.

 

[Glark]

Except that they didn’t just suddenly starting eating nylon. They evolved that ability.

Some bacteria recovered from ice core samples from Antarctica were found to be resistant to certain modern antibiotics. I wonder how they “evolved that ability.”

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Maybe its because evolution is crammed down our throat.

That you feel that way reflects - IMHO - hypersensitivity at least as much as it does reality.

In the last few days I read three articles on evolution explaining why some people don’t like dogs,mass murder and jealousy !!!

 

[Glark]

Hang on … you find it hard to believe that a placental reproductive system can evolve within a line of perfectly happy egg-laying reptiles? And that that placental system eventually replaces the perfectly adequate egg-llaying system when it’s good and ready? If so, you would make a terrible evolutionary biologist and an even worse Trekkie.