C
- Status
J
jmcrae
Guest
The theory of evolution is the idea that we are all begotten of some kind of single-celled organism that somehow either generated itself or was generated by God.
This single-celled organism became the ancestor of every variety of plant and animal on earth, over a period of millions of years, by means of each generation mutating into something else, so, algae giving birth to plants, which in turn gave birth to small animals, which in turn gave birth to larger animals, etc.
C
Cruxis117
Guest
J
jmcrae
Guest
It has never been observed. You do not see chimpanzees giving birth to human beings in modern times (although if evolution is true, then this must have happened at some point in the past), or algae spores growing up to be leafy vegetables.
Instead, we see that like begets like - just as it tells us in the Book of Genesis.
B
buffalo
Guest
Continuous examples of fossils are confirming stasis. It seems every few months they find a living fossil.
R
rcjones
Guest
What chicanery is this? You use the definition of the word ‘evolution’ for the Theory of Evolution. There is not just one Theory of Evolution, there are variants to it. Since you can’t prove origins, evolutionists now split a-biogenesis out of the Theory and make it a separate theory.
Yes, and it sounds that you are somehow asserting that it is possible and that it is true. As for assertions, I was merely responding to the outrageous assertion that said claim is a proven fact.
The definition you quote asserts what you deny:
Clever how the word type is substituted for species so that they can assert the meaning to be what ever they want it to be.
We’ve all been around long enough to know what evolution is no matter how much the definition is changed with time. The only thing that has evolved is the theory of evolution itself as each part is falsified by science. Call it speciation and split it from evolution because it can’t be proven, but it is still an integral part of evolution theory. Call it punctuated equilibrium because there’s no evidence of transitional types. Call it merely ‘change’ and vote for it, cause everyone knows that change is true. Call it change in allele densities within the population so that you obfuscate the conversation and pretend to be bright. We know the arguments for all your playing with the words. We just don’t buy it.
Sophistry isn’t science. Truth is not determined by popularity.
Done here. Ciao.
C
Cruxis117
Guest
I’m sorry rcjones, but frankly you do not have a clear understanding of what the Theory of Evolution is I believe. Evolution is not about proving origins.
B
buffalo
Guest
The Origins of Specious Nonsense - New Book
My book “The Origin of Specious Nonsense” is unceremoniously unashamedly and unmistakably going to expose the fiction of evolution.
It is a non academic attempt which is currently very popular worldwide due to the brilliant observationalist naturalist Charles Darwin’s 200 year birth anniversary and 150 years celebration of his monumental laughable fantasy, “The Origin of Species” which I have read forensically and counted 1550 suppositions.
What I am about to expose is their pretence that they possess arcane facts to support this toxic fiction.
The international appeal of such a book is evident by four of the worlds best known innocent atheist evolutionary authors, (Plus many others)
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel C Dennett, et al
These men appear to be intelligent good people who have sacrificed reason on the altar of , Chance , Mutations, Randomness which is a concoction for chaos. (I have read their excellent books)
My cry to many of the worlds atheists, scientists, evolutionists plus tens of millions of their duped followers shall be "Expose organised religion and deny there is a God to your hearts desire… only STOP pretending you have any facts whatsoever to support “the greatest deceit in the history of science!”
Evolution is a fantasy of farraginous farcical fatuous feculent facile facetiousness and my book shall lead the charge against this UNSCIENTIFIC HOAX worldwide.
This manuscript is extremely controversial and billions of human beings, young and old, black and white rich and poor are quite simply confused and would enjoy for a change some serious solid satisfying facts as opposed to the sorry sophistical nonsense we are inundated with from the media on a daily basis.
Incidentally four times last year I visited the brilliant Natural History Museum in London to examine the shrine to a religiously tortured excellent taxonomist Charles Darwin.
My book “The Origin of Specious Nonsense” is unceremoniously unashamedly and unmistakably going to expose the fiction of evolution.
It is a non academic attempt which is currently very popular worldwide due to the brilliant observationalist naturalist Charles Darwin’s 200 year birth anniversary and 150 years celebration of his monumental laughable fantasy, “The Origin of Species” which I have read forensically and counted 1550 suppositions.
What I am about to expose is their pretence that they possess arcane facts to support this toxic fiction.
The international appeal of such a book is evident by four of the worlds best known innocent atheist evolutionary authors, (Plus many others)
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel C Dennett, et al
These men appear to be intelligent good people who have sacrificed reason on the altar of , Chance , Mutations, Randomness which is a concoction for chaos. (I have read their excellent books)
My cry to many of the worlds atheists, scientists, evolutionists plus tens of millions of their duped followers shall be "Expose organised religion and deny there is a God to your hearts desire… only STOP pretending you have any facts whatsoever to support “the greatest deceit in the history of science!”
Evolution is a fantasy of farraginous farcical fatuous feculent facile facetiousness and my book shall lead the charge against this UNSCIENTIFIC HOAX worldwide.
This manuscript is extremely controversial and billions of human beings, young and old, black and white rich and poor are quite simply confused and would enjoy for a change some serious solid satisfying facts as opposed to the sorry sophistical nonsense we are inundated with from the media on a daily basis.
Incidentally four times last year I visited the brilliant Natural History Museum in London to examine the shrine to a religiously tortured excellent taxonomist Charles Darwin.
The tragedy of this pretentious fiction is that most people appear to accept it on face value without realising for a fact THERE ARE NO FACTS to support this delusion..
C
Cruxis117
Guest
No offense, but I’ll trust the academic facts versus the unacademic folly.
B
buffalo
Guest
That is his point.
E
edwest2
Guest
Of course it is. To say otherwise is to just repeat the totally nonscientific nonsense out there. The current wrong guess is “poof” life from nonliving chemicals. I wish people would be honest and just admit this.
God bless,
Ed
C
Cruxis117
Guest
No, It’s not. I’m sorry, but you don’t understand Evolution if that’s what you suggest it is.
By the way, in reference to what I have bolded, take a look at this:
Genesis 1:11- 11Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it.” And so it happened; 12 **the earth **brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was.
It doesn’t say that God brought forth every kind of plant. It says that The earth did. So, when you speak of Abiogenesis, of “non-living chemicals” bringing about life, which the earth is certainly made of, then you speak against Scripture. The Origin of Life is not what Evolution is about.
E
edwest2
Guest
Baloney. Science has ZERO to do with Scripture. There are Zero papers like A Scientific Investigation of Claims Made in Genesis, First Book of the Christian Bible. I wish people would realize this. Science has no standing. None. Because it cannot examine the supernatural.
If you want an example, Scripture tells us God – not the earth — breathed the breath of life into man’s nostrils. Do you see how it is impossible for science to comment on this?
Show me one scientist who cares whether I speak “against Scripture.” Science is not about Scripture. Fer cryin’ out loud.
God bless,
Ed
M
MarianD
Guest
I’ve long seen theistic evolution as fact. It’s not contrary to Church belief, which takes a neutral stance on evolution (the Pope himself sees it as the “most probable” way we got here).
It makes me closer to God. I see that, not only did He create everything, but He did it in such a complicated way that it makes us see how insignificant we are compared to Him.
It makes me closer to God. I see that, not only did He create everything, but He did it in such a complicated way that it makes us see how insignificant we are compared to Him.
E
edwest2
Guest
Really? Jesus gave sight to the blind, raised the dead and changed water to wine instantly. No complicated technology involved.
Please provide a quote from a Pope that said “most probable.”
God bless,
Ed
C
Cruxis117
Guest
C
Cruxis117
Guest
M
MarianD
Guest
Thank you for doing it for me.
Also, “technology” is never involved in miracles, nor was it involved in evolution.
C
Cruxis117
Guest
Anytime
B
buffalo
Guest
** What Does The Catholic Church **Teach about Origins?
(pdf version)
- God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
(Lateran IV; Vatican Council I) - Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
- Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
- Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
- Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
- The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
- The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
- Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
- Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
- After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
- Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
- The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
- We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
- All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
- The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
- St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
- The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
- Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
(Pius XII, Humani Generis) - Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.
- Status