Evolution is contradictory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter buss0042
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I denigrate such assumptive claims science makes to keep a paradigm alive.

Once science leaves the empirical realm it moves into philosophy.

Science is inferior to theology, for sure. Theology is the queen of all sciences.

It is your camp who claims science is superior to just about everything else. It is a god, so to speak to many. It is wrongheaded and ignorant. The indoctrinization has been well done. It surged when God was removed from education.
 
Instant of creation, instant of the Big Bang. This is what we were discussing. Not the flora and fauna of later times. Unless you think it all spewed Firth , dinosaurs tumbled out with Ist generation stars ?
 
buffalo said:
Got a magisterial document I can review on this.
Click to expand...
Hmm how about you start with the two most important ones to come out of Vat11. Or , You know, something that discusses reading Sacred Scripture .
 
Last edited:
What is IDvolution?

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).

IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

Arrows show information flow.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

IDvolution

ID=Intelligently Designed
volution - having a volute or rolled-up form.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
The laws that we create to describe the material is based on an assumption that what we find is predictable and repeatable. To claim that everything is changing would seem to be anti-science.
Click to expand...
Gravity causes change: it moves massive object in space. Is gravity anti-science because it causes change?

To be “predictable” we need change, otherwise there would be no need for any prediction. Everything would be the same as it is now and had always been.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
I have asked several times and it looks like this is all you have. 80 year old experiments that are so limited that you claim support evolution. I am amazed this is your foundation, so weak…
Click to expand...
You want more? OK, here are 5,110,000 hits: evolution.

Now it is your turn. Where are your 5,000,000 papers/experiments supporting ID?

rossum
 
buffalo said:
Science is inferior to theology, for sure. Theology is the queen of all sciences.
Click to expand...
So, when C. S. Lewis equated science to religion, he was praising science and putting it on the same high pedestal as religion. Got you.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Now it is your turn. Where are your 5,000,000 papers/experiments supporting ID?
Click to expand...
My my, that is how science is done now? Science by consensus or search engine hits, folks. There, that proves it.

As in J Harlen Bretz’s case, only one is needed to debunk.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
So, when C. S. Lewis equated science to religion, he was praising science and putting it on the same high pedestal as religion. Got you.
Click to expand...
Does that even sound right to you? He was making the point that science has become its own religion. It is funny and illogical though that provisional science could hold such dogmatic views until they are overturned. But it is OK for awhile I guess… But that is hos science is done, right? It is self-correcting. But it surely is meeting resistance as it is happening. Why? Evolution has become dogma.
 
rossum said:
To be “predictable” we need change, otherwise there would be no need for any prediction. Everything would be the same as it is now and had always been.
Click to expand...
Scientific laws need to change to be predictable? Huh?
 
Uriel1 said:
Neo Darwinism is a conspiratorial polemical system that denies the overwhelming evidence of design in biology. It is simply not science, in the sense of say physics, but is a bankrupt ideology, a religion with no God.
Click to expand...
Think about this - evolution allows them to be intellectually fulfilled atheists. ROTFL. But it is not…and really doesn’t. 😀

Most are here trying to convince themselves.
 
Aloysium said:
One way to describe the creation of atoms from the pre-existing plasma is that they “evolved” as the universe cooled.

There is no evolution, it being merely an materialistic illusion…
Click to expand...
So various elements emerged from the plasma and became more complex. The plasma evolved according to natural laws.

Oh, hang on. No they didn’t. Carbon and helium and the rest of the elementary table are just parts of a materialistic illusion. So they didn’t evolve from first principles.

I think that you have a different definition to ‘evolution’ than most others. In your case it means ‘a process that appears to contradict my preferred world view’.

If there is evidence that things are a lot different now than they were previously and we understand the process that brought those changes about, then you are entirely at liberty to describe the whole shooting match as ‘a materialistic illusion’.

You should paint it front and back of a sandwhich board and get some leaflets printed. It carries as much weight as ‘The End Of The World Is Nigh’.
 
buffalo said:
My my, that is how science is done now? Science by consensus or search engine hits, folks. There, that proves it.

As in J Harlen Bretz’s case, only one is needed to debunk.
Click to expand...
So, I have over five million experiments/papers to support evolution, you have … crickets …

That is the reason evolution has a lot more scientific credibility than Intelligent Design. ID has a few dozen papers to its name. Evolution has the evidence, while ID does not. In science the evidence wins.

You did notice that my link was to Google Scholar, didn’t you?

rossum
 
Last edited:
Your post is rather cryptic.

Thoughts that came to mind include:

It’s best not to underestimate people.

Most people are able to follow an intelligent conversation because an intelligent person tries to explain at the level of the person he’s speaking to.

One shouldn’t assume a person knows less than oneself simply because they disagree.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific
Neo Darwinism is a conspiratorial polemical system that denies the overwhelming evidence of design in biology. It is simply not science, in the sense of say physics, but is a bankrupt ideology, a religion with no God.
Click to expand...
Think about this - evolution allows them to be intellectually fulfilled atheists.
Click to expand...
Apart from one or two tinfoil hat wearing outliers, all those who denigrate evolution are Christians.

I wonder if we could draw any conclusions from that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top