Gaps in Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter SoulBeaver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Then you are scientifically illiterate. 🤷
To me that is a complement. What you call science today is a GODLESS pursuit. Time was when Catholic WISDOM prevailed, truth by two sources of knowledge, theology and natural philosophy. But your science begins with the rule SCIENCE CANNOT ENTERTAIN PRETERNATURAL CAUSES. Thus godless science is stuck with evolutionism, heliocentricism and big bangism. You have no other options. Heliocentricism has to deny the reality of where the human race exists, evolutionism has to get life from inorganic matter and the Big Bang has to get matter AND SPACE from nothing, a feat that contradicts the word science itself.

Thank God I am ‘scientifically illiterate’ because that kind of science is for the birds.
 
To me that is a complement. What you call science today is a GODLESS pursuit. Time was when Catholic WISDOM prevailed, truth by two sources of knowledge, theology and natural philosophy. But your science begins with the rule SCIENCE CANNOT ENTERTAIN PRETERNATURAL CAUSES. Thus godless science is stuck with evolutionism, heliocentricism and big bangism. You have no other options. Heliocentricism has to deny the reality of where the human race exists, evolutionism has to get life from inorganic matter and the Big Bang has to get matter AND SPACE from nothing, a feat that contradicts the word science itself.

Thank God I am ‘scientifically illiterate’ because that kind of science is for the birds.
Says the person on the computer
 
truth by two sources of knowledge, theology and natural philosophy.
Now we have three, Theology, Natural Philosophy, Scientific Method. Truth does not contradict Truth.
But your science begins with the rule SCIENCE CANNOT ENTERTAIN PRETERNATURAL CAUSES.
Science associates itself with how things work, mechanisms and explanations, it is of this world so to speak. Any preternatural causes is where it stems to Theology and Philosophy.
Thus godless science is stuck with evolutionism, heliocentricism and big bangism. You have no other options.
Darwin in his work of ‘Origins of Species’ associates some God as the ultimate role, albeit it may not be the Christian God.
Heliocentric cosmology, whose founder being Nicolaus Copernicus, was a Roman Catholic Cleric and also a Scientist.
Big Bang, as already mentioned prior, a Roman Catholic priest known as Georges Lemaître.
Heliocentricism has to deny the reality of where the human race exists, evolutionism has to get life from inorganic matter and the Big Bang has to get matter AND SPACE from nothing, a feat that contradicts the word science itself.
How does an idea which displaces the Earth from the centre of the universe deny the reality of where the human race exists? It exists on Earth.
Evolution is life that changes; it is the idea that life has a common ancestor. To come from inorganic matter is abiogenesis; after all, didn’t God breathe life into dirt to make man?
As for the Big Bang, which has to get matter and space from nothing, if you agree to this, then why is it impossible for Science when God himself creates everything out of nothing, something which is strikingly different from Oriental faiths.
Thank God I am ‘scientifically illiterate’ because that kind of science is for the birds
And I thank God for knowledge, wisdom and understanding.

God Bless.

Chris.
 
:rotfl:

Reminds me when some flying farinaceous visitors tried landing in our kitchen and kept sliding off the deck, I mean plates. Natural selection took care of that and future generations formed a co-operative society. Except for the cheats and traitors who lured their trusting brethren to their doom by telling them that hiding in red stuff was safe.
 
Darwin in his work of ‘Origins of Species’ associates some God as the ultimate role, albeit it may not be the Christian God.Chris.
Chris, I just visited the Darwin home at Downe, in Kent. If you get to England in the near future, I highly recommend a visit. We spent a very thoughtful day wandering the house and grounds, learning a lot about how Charles Darwin’s family life contributed to his careful observational and theoretical work.

Have you read Catholicism and Science by Allen and Hess (Greenwood Press, 2008)? The authors cover a lot of the ground you mention in your post.

StAnastasia
 
Chris, I just visited the Darwin home at Downe, in Kent. If you get to England in the near future, I highly recommend a visit. We spent a very thoughtful day wandering the house and grounds, learning a lot about how Charles Darwin’s family life contributed to his careful observational and theoretical work.

Have you read Catholicism and Science by Allen and Hess (Greenwood Press, 2008)? The authors cover a lot of the ground you mention in your post.

StAnastasia
Hi StAnastasia,

Have been wondering where you have been wandering. How great that you are seeing Darwin’s surroundings first hand.

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
 
Chris, I just visited the Darwin home at Downe, in Kent. If you get to England in the near future, I highly recommend a visit. We spent a very thoughtful day wandering the house and grounds, learning a lot about how Charles Darwin’s family life contributed to his careful observational and theoretical work.

Have you read Catholicism and Science by Allen and Hess (Greenwood Press, 2008)? The authors cover a lot of the ground you mention in your post.

StAnastasia
Just wondering - did you bow down to him? 😉
 
If some process like evolution occurred, it had to be guided. Currently, the ‘predictions’ of evolution are no more than observations of current living things and a lot of imagination.
Darwin’s Failed Predictions
We have bacteria, and fish, amphibians and land-dwelling creatures. Then you convince people that first there were bacteria, then there were fish and then there were amphibians, followed by land-dwelling creatures. Some fish in the past could suddenly just gulp air, decided they liked it and spent more time on land? That’s conjecture - a story - and not a very good one. Then, while they were flopping around on land, their fins decided to turn into legs? I mean it looks good animated but that is not proof that it happened that way.
It’s a secular myth for people who have abandoned God and religion. Some people who believe in God adhere also to the myth, and that causes a number of problems.
A part for the flagellum was first something syringe-like? Another story. In order for the syringe to work, the plunger must be precisely the right size. Too big, it won’t fit. Too small and air gets in, giving partial or zero function.
As a desperate grope in the dark for something that could answer the irreducible complexity of the flagellum, evolutionists claimed that the flagellum evolved from the type 3 secretion system (among many other unidentified, unknown parts). Then later they discovered that the TTSS was actually derived from the flagellum and did not pre-exist it (at least, that is the story from half of flagellum researchers today).

The TTSS is a devolution of the flagellum - in other words, the complete opposite of what evolutionists claimed (and the anti-evolutionary, ordinary, common process where parts and functions are lost rather than gained).

mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/msn153
 
When human actions (intellect and will) cannot be located in physical bones, muscle, tissue, brain, etc. which has been suggested by evolutionary theory, then there has to be another source and it sure isn’t Walmart.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.
Your wild speculation is no more valid than walmart.
 
My speculation was “then there has to be another source.” Have you any speculations about that source?"
Everything we know about intellect and will tells us there linked directly to the brain. So your speculation is wild and unfounded.
 
“Evolution” mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: heat, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones13). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature’s ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution’s only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how impossible it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

Debunking Evolution:
problems, errors, and lies exposed,
in plain language for non-scientists

Thats the website I got taht small pasage from.
 
Everything we know about intellect and will tells us there linked directly to the brain. So your speculation is wild and unfounded.
Maybe I am a wild granny.:rotfl:

When one makes a direct statement: “Everything we know about intellect and will tells us there linked directly to the brain.” Charles Darwin, Post 753. One needs to present something to back up that statement. I am especially looking forward to your evidence.😃
 
Maybe I am a wild granny.:rotfl:

When one makes a direct statement: “Everything we know about intellect and will tells us there linked directly to the brain.” Charles Darwin, Post 753. One needs to present something to back up that statement. I am especially looking forward to your evidence.😃
First step - a catalogue of “everything we know about intellect and will”. 😉
 
“Evolution” mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: heat, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones13). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature’s ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution’s only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how impossible it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

Debunking Evolution:
problems, errors, and lies exposed,
in plain language for non-scientists

Thats the website I got taht small pasage from.
All of that has already been debunked in this thread. Every attempt to show any irreducible complexity in life has failed. There is no good reason to think that micro-evolution could not lead to macro-evolution, and we have observed it happening. Evolution is a fact. Deal with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top