Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[Glark]

No the link doesn’t. It shows the links you grabbed from AIG or whatever other Creationist site you’re frequenting are out of context quotes. Out of context quotes are lies, and aren’t lies a sin? Is repeating someone else’s lies a sin?

The article you linked says horse evolution isn’t nearly as clear-cut as it was once reckoned to be, which is exactly what my quotes say. I’m wondering how that proves my qoutes are taken out of context.

 

[Glark]

By the way, Glark, you haven’t answered my question. What observation or test could you apply to falsify the claim “God did it”?

I tried to answer this question twice. In future, I will ignore it. But feel free to answer it yourself.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

No the link doesn’t. It shows the links you grabbed from AIG or whatever other Creationist site you’re frequenting are out of context quotes. Out of context quotes are lies, and aren’t lies a sin? Is repeating someone else’s lies a sin?

The article you linked says horse evolution isn’t nearly as clear-cut as it was once reckoned to be, which is exactly what my quotes say. I’m wondering how that proves my qoutes are taken out of context.

It certainly doesn’t intimate, as you were trying to assert, that horses didn’t evolve. The out of context quote is an attempt to make a researchers look like they’re rejecting evolution.

No lineage is known with perfect certainty, but the fossil record of equines still demonstrates how that that lineage evolved over time.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

By the way, Glark, you haven’t answered my question. What observation or test could you apply to falsify the claim “God did it”?

I tried to answer this question twice. In future, I will ignore it. But feel free to answer it yourself.

I’m sorry I missed. There’s a nobel prize for certain for the person who can come up for the scientific test for God’s involvement.

 

[Glark]

Genesis does say Adam was formed or shaped from the earth.

Genesis say Adam was formed as result of turning inanimate matter into a “living being”. It doesn’t say he was already a living being and became some other sort of living being. But if you’re a Darwinist, it doesn’t matter what Genesis says - because an untestable scientific theory trumps the Bible.

 

[Glark]

Science has run out of answers and the probabilities of the underpinnings of the universe – the cosmological parameters – having simply arisen for no reason except as an infinitesimally small (read zero) chance result simply doesn’t cut it.

In the minds of many atheists, science never runs out of answers. If the science isn’t in view now, it will show up eventually - even though it will be in the form of untestable theory. No problem, as longs as the theory sounds convincing enough, it will suffice (Darwinism is a perfect example). Anything but believe in a God.

 

[niceatheist]

HarryStotle:

Genesis does say Adam was formed or shaped from the earth.

Genesis say Adam was formed as result of turning inanimate matter into a “living being”. It doesn’t say he was already a living being and became some other sort of living being. But if you’re a Darwinist, it doesn’t matter what Genesis says - because an untestable scientific theory trumps the Bible.

You mean an untestable scientific theory that has been tested and confirmed countless times since Darwin’s day, as opposed to your own literal interpretation of Genesis, which many other Christians would disagree with.

Do you think evolutionary biology in any way threatens your faith? What if it were true? Would that force you to stop being a Christian?

 

[HarryStotle]

You mean an untestable scientific theory that has been tested and confirmed countless times since Darwin’s day, as opposed to your own literal interpretation of Genesis, which many other Christians would disagree with.

Untrue. A number of small aspects or features of the theory have been tested and confirmed but that is a far cry from the entire Darwinian thesis being tested or confirmed.

 

[Glark]

If there are aspects of the universe that we may never understand

… such as how blind, dumb, random chance can produce a beautiful woman, the human brain and the Large Hadron Collider.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

You mean an untestable scientific theory that has been tested and confirmed countless times since Darwin’s day, as opposed to your own literal interpretation of Genesis, which many other Christians would disagree with.

Untrue. A number of small aspects or features of the theory have been tested and confirmed but that is a far cry from the entire Darwinian thesis being tested or confirmed.

I’m sorry, I’m going to take the findings of generations of researchers over the words of random posters on the Internet.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

If there are aspects of the universe that we may never understand

… such as how blind, dumb, random chance can produce a beautiful woman, the human brain and the Large Hadron Collider.

I’m not really all that impressed by fallacious arguments from incredulity.

 

[Glark]

Glark: please answer a simple question:

Do you believe there is a dome in the sky separating “the waters”?

I don’t know. What is a “dome”?

 

[HarryStotle]

You can’t calculate the odds on something that has a sample size of one.

We’ve been through this before. I stand by my posts.

You can’t know whether any of the physical constants or interactions could have turned out multiple ways, or whether there are underlying physical laws that mean that certain things can only be one way.

Not sure whether these two claims are purely rhetorical, purely dogmatic, or pure fantasy. In any case, there is nothing that you have provided that leads us to believe that your “can’t know” statements are anything more than infallible proclamations from the Church of Nice Atheism.

 

[Glark]

You mean an untestable scientific theory that has been tested and confirmed countless times since Darwin’s day

The theory that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms has been tested and confirmed countless times? Are you sure about that?

Do you think evolutionary biology in any way threatens your faith?

Yes, because it contradicts the Bible.

What if it were true? Would that force you to stop being a Christian?

A hypothetical like this isn’t worth responding to.

 

[HarryStotle]

I’m sorry, I’m going to take the findings of generations of researchers over the words of random posters on the Internet.

How about just one peer reviewed paper showing the Darwinian thesis in its entirety has been proved beyond reasonable doubt? I am certain “generations of findings” should garner just one such conclusion in such a way as to be beyond dispute.

 

[Glark]

Untrue. A number of small aspects or features of the theory have been tested and confirmed

Such as?

but that is a far cry from the entire Darwinian thesis being tested or confirmed.

In other words, it is not “untrue” that the theory that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms has not been tested and confirmed.

 

[HarryStotle]

In other words, it is not “untrue” that the theory that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms has not been tested and confirmed.

Any more than two negatives in a single statement leaves me scratching my head as to why anyone would do that to the English language. You will have to rephrase.

 

[Glark]

I’m sorry, I’m going to take the findings of generations of researchers over the words of random posters on the Internet.

In that case, you won’t have any trouble citing one evolutionary scientist who says the theory that all life on earth has evolved from unicelllar organisms has been tested and confirmed.

 

[Rau]

Is this the same Pope who says “God is not a magician”?

Do you reject the Pope entirely, or only when his interpretation of Scripture differs from yours?

 

[Glark]

Any more than two negatives in a single statement leaves me scratching my head as to why anyone would do that to the English language. You will h

Sorry, it was the only way I could incorporate your “untrue” in my response. My “not “untrue”” translates to “true”. A double negative equals a positive - same as in mathematics. Simple.

“In other words, it is true that that the theory that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms has not been tested and confirmed.”