Evolution is contradictory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter buss0042
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What is the main difference between theistic evolution and the theory of evolution?
 
Its no worse than any other type of speculative science. No worse than the science surrounding the study of black holes, on which very little scientific experiments have been conducted. Does that prevent us from knowing anything about it? Of course not, we can observe and deduce facts from what we observe to be true. Imagine, 300 years ago we know there are celestial planets, but we can only observe them from a distance. We know that gravity exists as a fundamental force on tiny little earth - even without being able to conduct experiments, we can hypothesize that gravity also acts on those stars and planets in the sky. We now know that evolution takes place on the small scale, so it is just good scientific deduction to conclude that it translates to the larger scale, just as gravity does. You’re asking for a scientific experiment that proves what is already true in the small scale to the large scale; its the equivalent of 300 years ago demanding proof that gravity acts on planets as well, which would have been ridiculous to request at the time.
 
mVitus said:
40.png
buffalo:
theistic evolution and the theory of evolution?
Click to expand...
Theory of evolution: This is how it happened.
Theistic evolution: This is how it happened. And we know who did it.
Click to expand...
That’s good.
In any case, science is the how, faith is the meaning and purpose and creator.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
goout:
That’s good.
In any case, science is the how, faith is the meaning and purpose and creator.
Click to expand...
There is no difference then.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is a difference between faith and science, faith and reason.
These are different areas of competence.
And at the same time they are are complimentary.

You should know basic Catholic positions on science.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
Yes, there is a difference between faith and science, faith and reason.
And at the same time they are are complimentary.

You should know basic Catholic positions on science.
Click to expand...
There is no difference between TE and TOE.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
goout:
Yes, there is a difference between faith and science, faith and reason.
And at the same time they are are complimentary.

You should know basic Catholic positions on science.
Click to expand...
There is no difference between TE and TOE.
Click to expand...
“Theistic evolution” probably means different things to different people. Whatever it is, theistic evolution includes something that the straight scientific theory does not, which is that God was the creator of the universe in general and life in particular, and human life in very particular. But if theistic evolution exists in the context of Catholic thought, it does not include any beliefs about exact mechanisms of creation, like dirt transforming directly into man. You are free to believe that as a Catholic, but then you would no longer believe in evolution.
 
sevenswords said:
I would love to see a fossil showing one species evolve into another,
Click to expand...
Here you are:
Code: 
                    Feathers Flight   Bony Tail  Teeth
                    -------- ------   ---------  ------
Dinosaurs              No       No      Yes        Yes  :  Stegosaurus
Feathered Dinos       Yes       No      Yes        Yes  :  Jinfengopteryx
Archaeopteryx         Yes      Yes      Yes        Yes  :  Archaeopteryx
Early Birds           Yes      Yes       No        Yes  :  Ichthyornis
Modern Birds          Yes      Yes       No         No  :  Corvidae
Archaeopteryx is a transitional between dinosaurs and birds. It has features from dinosaurs: teeth and a bony tail. It has a feature from birds: flight.

We have other transitional fossils if you want: Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus etc.
sevenswords said:
DNA is a code a message of huge complexity and I am supposed to believe it came about by chance in a slime pool, thats a bit of a stretch i think.
Click to expand...
DNA did not come about by “chance”. Your source is misleading you by leaving out the effects of natural selection. Natural selection is not a chance process. DNA that does not allow its carrier to mature and reproduce will quickly be eliminated from the species’ gene pool. That is not a chance process.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
It is the godless creation myth.
Click to expand...
No, that is cosmology. Without cosmology evolution could not have happened. There would be no atoms to even begin abiogenesis, let alone evolution.

If you are against godless creation myths, then direct your criticism against cosmology.

rossum
 
o_mlly said:
But scientists who still search the geological record for evidence that modern man descended from the lower animals like the ape will, as they have always been, be unsuccessful.
Click to expand...
You are being misinformed by your sources. Just such evidence has been found, enough to establish the evolution of the physical human body from earlier Hominid ancestors. Science of course has nothing to say about the human soul.
Too many missing links in the record prevent any reputable scientist to claim that such evolution is a proven fact.
Click to expand...
Science, unlike mathematics, does not generally do “proof”. All it does is look at the weight of the evidence and “beyond reasonable doubt”. Science never had “proof” of Newton’s gravity, which was replaced by Einstein’s gravity. That in turn is not proved either, and will be replaced by a better theory.
A true scientist will recognize that physical science has nothing to do one way or another with proving or disproving the existence of God.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Though science can disprove certain claims made about God. For example the claim that God made the universe 6,000 years ago has been disproved.

rossum
 
Actually there is a lot of agreement between the two.
science answers how and creation answers why.

And they both cite a lengthy period of time.
Creation is about time, not space.
 
Last edited:
Look that is not proof that is nothing like proof a few creatures with some resemblance is not proof we can see today many creatures with similarities but they are not the same nor are they evolving into another species this is all wrong.You would think the earth would be littered in transitional fossils given this all happened over millions of years yet we have 2 or 3 dodgy samples to uphold a long dead theory . I find it ridiculous at best.
This is proof of the lie of evolution in species as Dinos are recent and have been hunted to extinction by man as depicted on art


What you have just said is all theory not a bit of it has proof, genetics do not get better mutations do not make things better never they make things worse they cause harm to the body as we would expect from thermodynamics as we see in nature all around us, and the law of sin. mankind is not getting better we are getting worse sicker by the day and I am expected to believe we evolved from low species to high species by our genetics mutating? it doesnt work that way. If you will indulge me I would like to see an example of how DNA does not allow its carrier to mature and quickly eliminate someone or thing from the species gene pool. Do you not know we are all carriers of defects from our ancestors DNA? do you not think that if humans are evolved from genes that killed off defects we would be a lot fitter a lot healthier? I’m sorry to have to argue with you but I have looked for proof of evo for the past 20 years when I came back to Christ and have read many papers watched many videos and have not came close to being convinced just the opposite, so please watch the video
 
buss0042 said:
We now know that evolution takes place on the small scale
Click to expand...
No we don’t. What we know is devolution, the gradual breakdown of genetic codes; and the playing out of built in genetic and epigenetic processes over generations of living organisms as each individual creature expresses in its particular form, the qualities of the kind of being that it is. The living form is an expression of God’s beauty as a participant existing in relation to its environment. So, you can throw out random mutation and natural selection is merely a peripheral factor in the manifestation of the diversity and complexity of life that exists on earth.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
You are being misinformed by your sources. Just such evidence has been found, enough to establish the evolution of the physical human body from earlier Hominid ancestors.
Click to expand...
The evolution of a hominid body forms similar to man is not the issue. The issue is the absence of evidence of “sapiens” in lower animals.

As a science, paleoanthropologists make observations and use inductive reasoning to put forth theories concerned with the origin and history of mankind. Because phenomena of the distant past are not open to observation and experiment, paleoanthropologists must attempt to reconstruct the events of the past and appeal to the principle of uniformity. Paleoanthropologists often have more difficulty in defending their positions than their counterparts in the experimental sciences and disagreements abound. Unlike the experimental scientists, paleoanthropologists may only refer to available recorded human testimony and artifact, while the experimental sciences can always refer to repeatable experiments. Paleoanthropologists’ explanations or meanings are necessarily more contrived than derived, somewhat subjective, and always dependent on the discovery of additional artifact or ancient manuscript. For these reasons, paleoanthropologists often disagree on their interpretations of the same evidence.
rossum said:
Science, unlike mathematics, does not generally do “proof”.
Click to expand...
As a science, as I wrote, the Church does not take issue nor makes technical judgements on the findings of the science. However, as a philosophy, evolutionists attempt to prove the ascent of man directly from animals. That claim has no basis in fact and no evidence in support. Their arguments are characteristically convoluted and without merit often depending more on what is not known than what is known.
rossum said:
Though science can disprove certain claims made about God. For example the claim that God made the universe 6,000 years ago has been disproved.
Click to expand...
The Church does not make such a claim. The Bible is not a science book.
 
rossum said:
40.png
o_mlly:
The issue is the absence of evidence of “sapiens” in lower animals.
Click to expand...
We have just that. We have advanced planning by a chimp: Stone-Throwing Chimp Is Back.

We have birds making tools: Making tools gives crows a big food boost.

Toolmaking and advance planning seem ‘sapiens’ to me.

Humans are not as special as we sometimes like to think.

rossum
Click to expand...
o_mlly said:
Their arguments are characteristically convoluted and without merit often depending more on what is not known than what is known.
Click to expand...
I would add simplistic and laughable.
 
o_mlly said:
The evolution of a hominid body forms similar to man is not the issue. The issue is the absence of evidence of “sapiens” in lower animals. .
Click to expand...
So if we go back to the early hominids, back to the time our ancestors had barely started walking, we see a gradual ability to control the environment. Evolving from a gradual increase in intelligence. Stone tools, fire, cooking, clothing, speech.

You do seem to like things to be cut and dried so maybe you can point out the date when there was no evidence for intelligence (sapience) at all. Maybe June 1st exactly 300,000 years ago. That’s when Homo sapien appeared.

It can only then have been on June 2nd that they all discovered stone tools, control of fire, cooking, clothes etc. These things can’t have happened earlier because of the ‘absence of sentience in the lower animals’ (notwithstanding the nonsensical use of ‘lower’ in this context).

It must have been quite a busy day.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top