Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bradskii said:
On the contrary. I would gladly give my time up to anyone who wanted to understand evolution. I can list all the books that you would need to read (that I already have). I could link to all the Youtube videos that you would need to watch (which I already have). I could give you dozens of web pages that cover all aspects of evolution right from basic principles to the more esoteric matters such as molecular biology (which I have read). I could also give you all the arguments against evolution that really need to be answered. And I can give you all the answers.
Click to expand...
“always learning but never able to arrive at the knowledge of the truth” -2Tim 3:7

Tell me, why have you devoted endless hours of your life to studying a theory that can never be tested and is utterly useless in any practical sense? You ought to consider studying something more relevant to reality - the Tooth Fairy, for example.
But really, you have to ask yourself how much time you would spend trying to teach someone about a matter that they were not the slightest bit interested in learning. And had in fact, with no real knowledge of the matter at hand, had already that decided that information about which they show every indication of being in ignorance, was wrong.
Click to expand...
Now is your chance to teach me something: Please give me an example of my ignorance viz-a-viz the theory of evolution.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
But this? It’s like when you’re watching a B movie on late night TV that is so bad you just have to keep watching.
Click to expand...
Evo-infidels are truly pitiful creatures; so un-evolved. Still, I’m glad you’re at least being entertained by them to some degree.
 
Glark said:
40.png
Bradskii:
But this? It’s like when you’re watching a B movie on late night TV that is so bad you just have to keep watching.
Click to expand...
Evo-infidels are truly pitiful creatures; so un-evolved. Still, I’m glad you’re at least being entertained by them to some degree.
Click to expand...
“Evo-infidels”? Seriously. So this is going to devolve into a school yard mud slinging fest?

Tell you what. Want to impress me with your insights. Describe what exactly biological evolution is, and without the insults, pointless asides or references to Answers In Genesis.
 
The bill of a platypus is not a beak structure. It may look a bit like one, but that’s like saying the fins of a whale look like wings.
 
Glark said:
Tell me, why have you devoted endless hours of your life to studying a theory that can never be tested and is utterly useless in any practical sense? You ought to consider studying something more relevant to reality - the Tooth Fairy, for example.
Click to expand...
You keep saying this, and it simply isn’t true. But I really want to probe what it is exactly you know about evolution, because I’ve come to the conclusion that you are pretty much ignorant of the theory; of what evidence it purports to have, what predictions it makes, what mechanisms it invokes, or really, anything about it all. You appear to be completely driven by a desire to prop up your literal interpretation of Genesis.

But prove me wrong. Let’s see what you actually know about evolutionary biology.
 
niceatheist said:
The bill of a platypus is not a beak structure. It may look a bit like one, but that’s like saying the fins of a whale look like wings.
Click to expand...
So what is the structure of the Roseate Spoonbill ?
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
That’s all very well and good, but it doesn’t explain why God would directly compare six literal days of human work to the six days of creation (Exodus 20:11) if he didn’t want us to believe that the six days of creation were literal days.
Click to expand...
"Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact “that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same “day” as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5)." (Catholic Answers)

Glark, are you a Fundamentalist? I mean no disrespect but you know that if the facts about evolution are real, then God could have created it? Also are you trying to debunk evolution? I’m only asking for clarification here because I have yet to see statistics, actual legitimate theories, etc. From you. The explanations I see are only your understanding
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
It shows that a new species can easily (just three mutations) evolve from an earlier species. It may take more than three, but it shows the potential for new species to arise.
Click to expand...
Yeah, like Green Warblers speciating into more Green Warblers. In other words, evolution is built on rank speculation.
Given that new species can arise from mutations, Then there is no observed barrier for three, four, five etc. new species to evolve from earlier species.
Click to expand...
Thousands of years of intensive animal and plant breeding by humans suggests there is indeed an observed barrier.
 
Last edited:
niceatheist said:
You understand that the theories on mammal evolution state that mammals evolved from reptile or reptile-like animals (hence the platypus’s egg laying).
Click to expand...
A line of reptiles somehow evolved a placental reproductive system while at the same time laying eggs? And … why? Then for some reason, the placental system took over and the egg-laying system disappeared.

Apparently, this nonsense is “science”. It’s so ridiculous and far-fetched that it’s some kind of miracle that sane adults are prepared to believe it.
 
Last edited:
In a way yes, but all you have to do is focus the fish with a low apperature (on a camera) and you get amazing results
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
40.png
niceatheist:
You understand that the theories on mammal evolution state that mammals evolved from reptile or reptile-like animals (hence the platypus’s egg laying).
Click to expand...
A line of reptiles somehow evolved a placental reproductive system while at the same time laying eggs? And … why? Then for some reason, the placental system took over and the egg-laying system disappeared. And they call this nonsense science? This is so ridulous and far-fetched that it is some kind of miracle that sane adults are prepared believe it.
Click to expand...
Plus, what did the Oyster do before it’s shell evolved ? 🙂
 
rossum said:
I posit an eternal uncreated universe.
Click to expand...
Science seems to tell a different story:
“The discovery that the 200,000 galaxies had lost half their energy in just two billion years alarmed astronomers, as this could mean the slow death of the universe. An international team of astronomers studying the galaxies has measured that all energy in the universe will eventually dissolve into nothingness. However, the timespan is over a billion years, not just a few years” - International Business Times, 2015

If the universe is heading for death, it had a birth.
 
Last edited:
That’s not evolution. It is pre-existing mechanisms performing their built-in functions. If humans had that, we’d be a lot healthier.
 
edwest211 said:
Evolution has no scientific usefulness. It is also unnecessary for the average person to know. For Catholics, you should know the theory can’t be verified.
Click to expand...
Which begs the question: Why is so much emphasis placed on a theory that is untestable and has no practical use?

Perhaps the Pontifical Academy of Sciences can tell us - they think this theory is actually important.
 
Last edited:
niceatheist said:
Evolution is used every day. It’s critical in epidemiology, for instance. Perhaps you just don’t really understand it enough to make these sorts of grand proclamations.
Click to expand...
Please cite one practical use for the theory that all life on earth evolved from unicellular life forms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top