Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Easy. “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (Richard Dawkins). It is a key, if not the key pillar in supporting and promoting “God? Show me god and I might believe in him.” Now, with evolution being heavily marketed as “a fact,” there is your reason to exclude God from the Bible, science and everything else. Now, people are still free to believe or disbelieve. God and the Church will certainly not force anyone. And God knows nobody needs my permission to do anything. As if they’d listen…
 
Last edited:
niceatheist said:
The bill of a platypus has virtually nothing in common with a bird’s beak (of which a duck’s bill is simply a specialized form). Perhaps you should learn a little about platypus physiology before you make any more silly statements.
Click to expand...
You’re being pedantic. Which “ancestor” of the platypus has a similar bill?
 
edwest211 said:
Easy. “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (Richard Dawkins). It is a key, if not the key pillar in supporting and promoting “God? Show me god and I might believe in him.” Now, with evolution being heavily marketed as “a fact,” there is your reason to exclude God from the Bible, science and everything else. Now, people are still free to believe or disbelieve. God and the Church will certainly not force anyone. And God knows nobody needs my permission to do anything. As if they’d listen…
Click to expand...
I can understand atheist reasons, but Catholics… WHY !!!
 
Oh that’s not a real bird! It’s something you just made up using evo-infidel technology invented by Satan!
 
Glark said:
Which begs the question: Why is so much emphasis placed on a theory that is untestable and has no practical use?
Click to expand...
Emphasis? Or interest? It’s a fascinating exploration and evidence gathering task. If people could only separate the results of scientific enquiry from the speculation about metaphysical issues by People such as Dawkins, perhaps they would cease to fear and despise the study. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Easy. “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (Richard Dawkins). It is a key, if not the key pillar in supporting and promoting “God? Show me god and I might believe in him.” Now, with evolution being heavily marketed as “a fact,” there is your reason to exclude God from the Bible, science and everything else. Now, people are still free to believe or disbelieve. God and the Church will certainly not force anyone. And God knows nobody needs my permission to do anything. As if they’d listen…
Click to expand...
This demonstrates exactly the point I made in the prior post.
 
Unfortunately, as someone who has worked in the media for years, that is generally true. Heard of Coke and Pepsi? So, why do they still market the brands? Why not put that ad money into profits? They need to have it on your mind. That way, when it comes time to pick up a soft drink, you’ll pick up the “right” one, as opposed to something different. Repetition is a form of programming the masses.
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
niceatheist:
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 ?
Click to expand...
You could start with the fact that bird’s beaks are keratinized layer of epidermis (skin), whereas the platypus’s bill is essentially a rubbery snout. They are two different structures that just happen to look alike. The resemblance isn’t even really skin deep.
 
Glark said:
40.png
niceatheist:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
edwest211 said:
That’s not evolution. It is pre-existing mechanisms performing their built-in functions. If humans had that, we’d be a lot healthier.
Click to expand...
Can you define “pre-existing”. Bacteria that evolved to eat nylon were certainly relying on pre-existing abilities, but had to evolve some genetic novelty because, after all, nylon is a 20th century invention.

What we’re really dealing here is you trying to move the goal posts.
 
Glark said:
40.png
edwest211:
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.
Click to expand...
Because despite your constant proclamation to the otherwise (based apparently on near total ignorance of evolution, biology or any other science) it is testable.
 
“move the goal posts” Almost funny. I wonder who first decided to eat cheese with mold on it? No, nylon has a chemical structure that bacteria, through their built-in mechanism of horizontal gene transfer, made it digestible. But the point is, they remained bacteria.
 
niceatheist said:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
niceatheist:
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 ?
Click to expand...
You could start with the fact that bird’s beaks are keratinized layer of epidermis (skin), whereas the platypus’s bill is essentially a rubbery snout. They are two different structures that just happen to look alike. The resemblance isn’t even really skin deep.
Click to expand...
What about Pelicans ?
 
Glark said:
Yeah, like Green Warblers speciating into more Green Warblers. In other words, evolution is built on rank speculation.
Click to expand...
A new species of Green Warbler is still a new species. That is a perfectly good example of speciation, i.e. macroevolution. The new species will resemble its parent species since only part of its DNA will have mutated, not all of its DNA. That is what biologists call “common descent” and is why we can place species into higher groupings: warblers, birds, tetrapods etc.
Thousands of years of intensive animal and plant breeding by humans suggests there is indeed an observed barrier.
Click to expand...
Try it for tens of thousands of years or hundreds of thousands. If you spend ten minutes watching a blade of grass, you might come to the conclusion that grass does not grow.

rossum
 
niceatheist said:
40.png
Aloysium:
Cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, the amount of melanin in the skin, child onset diabetes mellitus, resistance to tuberculosis or small pox, a person’s height, the shape of the face, these are among the million or so traits that are inherited. They have nothing to do with the creation of mankind. They are traits that are genetically passed on as the individual person is brought into existence, the soul incorporating matter including the DNA it has been given, in its formation.
Click to expand...
The simplest definition of evolution is “the genetic makeup of a population changes over time”. You are aware that in any species, traits will tend to change over time. That is evolution.
Click to expand...
This does nothing but muddy the water. One of the issues with any discussion about evolution is that there is no fixed meaning.

Traditionally the term has been used to describe a progressive process, things growing in complexity. Someone might say “He has evolved.” intending to signify growth, not simply change. When we say “The situation devolved into chaos.” we mean that things seriously went bad. It is not neutral by any means although your most recent attempt to define evolution would be - a different coloured finch for example.

The fact is that in general mutations are bad. When you go to the dentist, they put on an apron to prevent the x-rays from affecting your body, particularly your genitals. No one goes out to drink agent orange to give their offspring a better shot at life.

As a reminder, people here are talking about creation, which the Theoey of Evolution denies. They are also asserting that there were only two original human parents, which again the Theory denies. In addition, what is claimed by the Church, and which common sense affirms, is that there exists a human spirit which in life is one with the body. To separate the two means the death of the person. This obvious fact is ignored by an approach that sees only the material, a bias that throws the entire enterprise askew. The best that can be done is to measure brain size which gives no information as to how mathematics or your capacity to understand these words and juggle ideas has arisen. What we have here are assumptions which cannot be proved or disproved, but simply narrow the parameters of inquiry. Darwin’s theory not only tells us nothing about how life arose (especially the version that dwells on genetics and biochemistry) but seems to lack an understanding of the true nature of life. Play with your cat or dog, and you will come out of it knowing more than any time spent with a textbook. And, I have spent decades with textbooks and journals.

I’m going to leave it at that for now.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top