Evolution and Darwin against Religion and God

  • Thread starter Thread starter John121
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The basics of biology are wrong? How?
I just showed you one way. How many do you need to be convinced? I suggest an openness to the fast pace of new findings. The current paradigm has to deal with this or it is obsolete. This is the dilemma the top evo’s are dealing with as illustrated by the Royal Society proceedings.
 
Where is that from?

Are you saying the universe is only 6000 years old? Are you kidding?
 
No you didn’t. You just showed that either you misunderstood what you were being taught, the school was teaching you wrong, or that science has improved its understanding of evolution since whenever it is that you went to school.

There’s no mandate that I be open to pseudoscience. Especially when entire governments are ruling it to be “not science”.

What’s “evo’s”? Why is there an apostrophe?
 
But you’ve repeatedly denied scientifically verifiable results.
You are but don’t yet realize it. You are standing on obsolete science. Evolution is not empirically proven. If it was there would be no argument, by anyone. To be clear no one argues micro evolution, macro is the issue. Add in the design problem … They are admitting design in organisms.
 
There’s no mandate that I be open to pseudoscience. Especially when entire governments are ruling it to be “not science”.
If you wish to stand on the argument a judge or the government ruled design is not science it is a very weak position and investigative science does not give a hoot at all about Dover. The research goes on.
 
Show me evidence of intelligent design.

How is the theory of evolution obsolete exactly? Evolution literally is empirically proven, there is a massive body of evidence showing that evolution occurs.

“Macro” and “micro” evolution are literally the same process.

Who’s “they”?
 
So I should ignore the fact the vast majority of non-scientists and literally all reputable scientists reject intelligent design and listen to you (some random on an internet forum) instead?

Dover Delaware?
 
It’s fun. And I find it shocking that it’s even allowed on this site purporting to be Catholic at all in the first place. The other day I suspended for 24 hours for quoting the 6th commandment.
 
volution literally is empirically proven
Prove it. Show me your top 5 experiments that are observable, repeatable and predictable to support your claim. You will have to work really hard as you just heard the Royal Society Audio that stated there is not any empirical evidence. But, go for it…
 
It might be an accident since 24 hour suspensions don’t usually occur. Since you are fairly new it could be because they put a limit for your first day.
 
Last edited:
So I should ignore the fact the vast majority of non-scientists and literally all reputable scientists reject intelligent design and listen to you (some random on an internet forum) instead?
You should be at minimum to be open to the research. The scientists who study this have taken it to the top echelons, one of them is the Royal Society, who you indicated you trust. Take it up with them.
 
In other words, God put a lot of work into making us look like we evolved from common ancestor shared with other primates.
Well, the YEC view says God simulated stars that would have existed billions of light years away. I’m not sure this is that much of a leap from there.
So you didn’t read the quote from the Church document I provided?
I read it and don’t know what you’re getting at. It clearly defines that the problem is with the claim that evolution is unguided and even acknowledges that evolution is acceptable:
Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so.
That line doesn’t make sense if you don’t at least allow for evolution.
Evolution is useless.
As someone whose background is in ecology and computer science, I can safely say that you’re wrong. A lot of ecology can be thought of as applied evolution, and computer science has algorithms inspired by the science behind evolution, including of natural selection specifically.
 
Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Genetic fragments such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations support common descent alongside the universal biochemical organization and molecular variance patterns found in all organisms. Additional genetic information conclusively supports the relatedness of life and has allowed scientists (since the discovery of DNA) to develop phylogenetic trees: a construction of organisms evolutionary relatedness. It has also led to the development of molecular clock techniques to date taxon divergence times and to calibrate these with the fossil record.

Fossils are important for estimating when various lineages developed in geologic time. As fossilization is an uncommon occurrence, usually requiring hard body parts and death near a site where sediments are being deposited, the fossil record only provides sparse and intermittent information about the evolution of life. Evidence of organisms prior to the development of hard body parts such as shells, bones and teeth is especially scarce, but exists in the form of ancient microfossils, as well as impressions of various soft-bodied organisms. The comparative study of the anatomy of groups of animals shows structural features that are fundamentally similar (homologous), demonstrating phylogenetic and ancestral relationships with other organisms, most especially when compared with fossils of ancient extinct organisms. Vestigial structures and comparisons in embryonic development are largely a contributing factor in anatomical resemblance in concordance with common descent. Since metabolic processes do not leave fossils, research into the evolution of the basic cellular processes is done largely by comparison of existing organisms’ physiology and biochemistry. Many lineages diverged at different stages of development, so it is possible to determine when certain metabolic processes appeared by comparing the traits of the descendants of a common ancestor.
 
Evidence from animal coloration was gathered by some of Darwin’s contemporaries; camouflage, mimicry, and warning coloration are all readily explained by natural selection. Special cases like the seasonal changes in the plumage of the ptarmigan, camouflaging it against snow in winter and [against brown moorland in summer provide compelling evidence that selection is at work. Further evidence comes from the field of biogeography because evolution with common descent provides the best and most thorough explanation for a variety of facts concerning the geographical distribution of plants and animals across the world. This is especially obvious in the field of insular biogeography. Combined with the well-established geological theory of plate tectonics, common descent provides a way to combine facts about the current distribution of species with evidence from the fossil record to provide a logically consistent explanation of how the distribution of living organisms has changed over time.

The development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria provides evidence that evolution due to [natural selection. Natural selection is ubiquitous in all research pertaining to evolution, taking note of the fact that all of the following examples in each section of the article document the process. Alongside this are observed instances of the separation of populations of species into sets of new species. Speciation has been observed in the lab and in nature. Multiple forms of such have been described and documented as examples for individual modes of speciation. Furthermore, evidence of common descent extends from direct laboratory experimentation with the selective breeding of organisms—historically and currently—and other controlled experiments involving many of the topics in the article. This article summarizes the varying disciplines that provide the evidence for evolution and the common descent of all life on Earth, accompanied by numerous and specialized examples, indicating a compelling consilience of evidence.

Sources:
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20100610231107/http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

 
The admin who suspended me stated that my reading of the 6th commandment was wrong and that I should stop talking about it. That’s the digest of what the admin said.
 
Depending on what you said they could be right. But you shouldn’t talk bad about them otherwise you could get suspended.
 
I am open to research, you haven’t provided any research though. Your whole argument seems to be based on this audio recording.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top