Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[Techno2000]

rossum, I’m try to show that there has to be a food chain (the big eat the small) in place for life to be supported.Evolution is trying to do it backwards.Let’s start at the beginning what was the very first living organism ?

 

[rossum]

rossum, I’m try to show that there has to be a food chain (the big eat the small) in place for life to be supported.Evolution is trying to do it backwards.Let’s start at the beginning what was the very first living organism ?

“Food” is basically an energy source. Chemotrophs use chemicals in the environment as food from which to extract energy. Autotrophs make their own food, think photosynythesis in plants. Heterotrophs eat other organisms for food. Both ourselves and sponges are heterotrophs. Oh yes, and in a food chain, sometimes a small parasite will eat a much larger prey.

The first life was a very simple lipid bilayer cell membrane enclosing a mix of RNA ribozymes. It was a chemotroph, absorbing chemicals from the water around it and breaking down those chemicals for energy. You can see similar processes today round Hydrothermal Vents, where bacteria absorb Hydrogen Sulphide and break it down to release energy.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

simple lipid bilayer cell membrane enclosing a mix of RNA ribozymes.

Ok, you say the first organism was simple lipid bilayer cell membrane enclosing a mix of RNA ribozymes and it lived off of chemicals…correct ?

 

[Rau]

…why it matters to you what others think when the Church has clearly stated that the faithful can believe what makes sense to them, within the limits of its teachings on creation.

What people believe on this point is a personal matter and of no interest to me. What they seek to persuade others to believe - when such beliefs have no bearing on their salvation - is another matter. Ideas such as all life an earth was created 5778 years ago. That scientists working in the relevant fields have all produced erroneous evidence, and that evolution was “invented” to buttress the case that there is no God.

 

[Aloysium]

That’s not how I have read those posts, which I took as statements of simply those individuals’ beliefs on the history of creation. I don’t think anyone convinces anyone else in these discussions; or at least, I’ve never seen it.

The matter isn’t about producing fraudulent evidence, but rather about the interpretation.

It’s not an issue for me because I’ve always loved and done science pretty much all my life, but someone might have a moral choice presented to them to believe either in a literal interpretation of the Bible or a literal interpretation of science. The Theory of Evolution, as it has been presented, is a failure; Genesis does a far better job at describing our origins.

I know that science can and will ultimately succeed, if not in this life, then the next, at pulling things together in a rational way. The focus in the material prevents it from doing so. With God at the centre, it all makes sense - no conflict between the fossil record and creation, no conflict between mind and body. There is one truth, and the modern evolutionary approach to creation derails the quest for a rational description of that truth.

I don’t expect atheists to do this, having not worked on their relationship with God and even actively fighting against having one. Catholics and other Christians should. This does not mean we must be followers of Intelligent Design, not that there’s anything wrong with that, but because God is not Designer, Son and Holy Spirit, but loving Father.

 

[rossum]

Yes. In future please do not ask questions that can easily be answered by reading my previous post.

 

[Techno2000]

Yes. In future please do not ask questions that can easily be answered by reading my previous post.

Ok, what was the second living organism ?

 

[rossum]

Ok, what was the second living organism ?

One of the characteristics of living organisms is that they reproduce. If you have one organism and it reproduces (asexually of course) then what do you have?

Was that really so difficult to work out?

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Ok, what was the second living organism ?

One of the characteristics of living organisms is that they reproduce. If you have one organism and it reproduces (asexually of course) then what do you have?

Was that really so difficult to work out?

rossum

So, the first organism asexually reproduced into a new second organism ?

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of this Western left obsession with making Jesus and God a black woman (not that there’s anything wrong with being either) just so they can virtue-signal.

 

[edwest211]

That’s the problem. Information is ignored. We need to be educated about this as if it’s the most important thing on earth. It isn’t. It matters if you look at a tree or a flower and think “that just got to be the way it is all by itself, through ‘natural’ forces.”

Science in this area is in a pitiful state. They are taking apart the genome and trying to figure out which part does what. Genetic knock out experiments are nothing more than “let’s take this out and see what effect it has on the organism. 1) The organism dies (write that down), the organism can’t walk (write that down) or 'no observable effect on the organism” (put a big question mark next to that). I have read peer-reviewed journals where it’s: this is related to this function but we don’t know how it works, just that it does, or this function is activated by this and we know the activation sequence and so on. Take apart a complex organism and then find out that an mRNA way over here triggers this, which triggers that which - somehow - affects this. And we don’t get it.

Once they figure out how the parts, switches and other aspects work, they think they can build a biological machine. Because, after all, that is all we are.

I sincerely hope that those on the verge of dying realize that just before, there will be an invitation to believe in a Creator God. God knows each one of us. And He knows what He did. Pure materialism will not be the last word.

 

[Aloysium]

The consequences of this belief system includes the experimentation you describe above, on human embryos discarded from in vitro fertilisation. Mankind behaves as if it were God, with no one to answer to, and paradoxically we come to treat one another as if we were trash rather than the image of God.

 

[rossum]

So, the first organism asexually reproduced into a new second organism ?

That’s what I said. Start with one cell. It reproduces and you get two cells. When they reproduce you get four cells. If one failed to reproduce then there would only be three cells. Again, this is not difficult to work out.

rossum

 

[Glark]

I don’t about you, but I’m sick of this Western left obsession with making Jesus and God a black woman (not that there’s anything wrong with being either) just so they can virtue-signal.

The obession with racism and feminism scores big points in the Most Righteous Cultural-Marxist compettion.

 

[Glark]

Because there is no evidence. And because I judge it beyond the capacity of those involved to pursue a conspiracy of the scale involved, over the duration involved

Do you believe in Satan and demons?

 

[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?

Actually, Glark is showing his ignorance here: Not all reptiles lay eggs. Some reptiles give birth to life young - these are the ones that mammals supposedly evolved from.
However, evolutionists need to explain how all the other huge differences between reptiles and mammals evolved. The explanations I’ve read so far rely heavily on rank speculation, baseless assumptions and comedy. (For example, evo’s claim that the inner-ear of mammals evolved from pieces of a reptile’s jaw. No plausible explanation is offered for how this could possibly have happened - it is pure speculation and fantasy, aka junk science.)

 

[edwest211]

No one to answer to indeed. If I am nothing then I am constrained by nothing. Now, this covers a wide spectrum of possible scenarios, including Indifference. Your answer to whatever may not be my answer to the same set of circumstances. Soulless beings do absorb information and develop a set of situational parameters while living. Some are quite docile, others are a bit more extreme. In the end, without agreed upon general principles, human beings turn to tribalism - others that behave in similar ways but recognize no truth but only concepts that involve pleasure or isolation. Human beings no longer relate to one another, they interact as much or as little as the situation calls for and that’s it. All of this caused by an alleged “evolutionary psychology.” Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die. No, that does not mean people with such a mind set cannot do good things but it is not a universal good, just a “I happened to be there” situational good. Or leave the guy in pain alone. Why interfere? That’s not human.

 

[Glark]

Your sources’ ignorance of biology is showing. Lungfish and some amphibians have both lungs and gills. Initially the lungs only needed to be good enough to supplement the gills is situations like stagnant water, where the oxygen content of the water was low and there was an advantage to getting a little extra oxygen from the air as well.
You are looking at a big cliff and saying “that is impossible to climb”. You are missing the gently sloping path round the back of the cliff which takes a longer roundabout way, but still gets to the top.

Natrual selection relies on a mutation conferring a survivlal advantage. How does 0.001% of a lung system confer a survival advantage to said fish?

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

So, the first organism asexually reproduced into a new second organism ?

That’s what I said. Start with one cell. It reproduces and you get two cells. When they reproduce you get four cells. If one failed to reproduce then there would only be three cells. Again, this is not difficult to work out.

rossum

I mean are trying to say it’s mutating into something new with a different name ?

 

[rossum]

For example, evo’s claim that the inner-ear of mammals evolved from pieces of a reptile’s jaw. No plausible explanation is offered for how this could possibly have happened - it is pure speculation and fantasy, aka junk science.

You are being lied to, yet again. If you persist in believing websites that lie to you, then your posts will continue to contain gross errors, such as this. By posting such obvious errors, you other posts lose credibility, even when you are correct.

The evolution of the mammalian ear from Therapsid (aka mammal-like reptiles) jawbones is well understood, and there is a good series of transitional fossils documenting the transition. There are 47 references in the Wikipedia article Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles, as well as the further reading section.

Your lying fake science sources are lying to you when they falsely claim “pure speculation”. Why do you believe sources that lie to you.

rossum