Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

[anon65111186]

Speaking generally, God would be molding living matter to make Adam. His subsequent actions are clear; He gave Adam a soul and breathed the breath of life into Adam. The word animal does not apply.

Yes, God molded pre-existing (before Adam was human) living matter, which we don’t call human matter. What would that be? Sperm? Eggs? What do you take this previously existing living matter to be?

So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found

Yes, so the point is Adam had no helper. That means the pre-existing hominid was not helper to him, as monkeys today aren’t as helpful as humans as a mate.

 

[anon65111186]

And we do not do science by consensus.

Yet we accept the Church fathers authority by consensus, our modern democracy by consensus, we judge the guilt or innocence of murderers and criminals by consensus, the Magisterium teaches by consensus, scientific theories are accepted by consensus.

I’m sure there are people who don’t believe in gravity, or original sin, or the teachings on the virginity of Mary, but they are not in that consensus that teaches those things are true, the consensus which just happens to be right also. How convenient that the consensus just happens to be the right one? Truth is not a numbers game, but consensus is very important in the Church and in society for determining the truth of something.

If you feel so passionately about it being wrong, why don’t you do the Biology yourself to prove undeniably that it is false?

Produce the observable, repeatable and predictable experiments.

I have, in the previous 3 long, long threads. Merry go round?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

How to create an elephant:

Techno2000 - God literally moulding lumps of clay with disembodied hands
Aloysium - God made elephants utilising the “information” contained in atoms and molecules (?)
Buffalo - Of course we do not know

Can we complete the set? Edwest211, What do you reckon I would have seen if I could have watched as the first elephant was created?

And, moving on, how many elephants did God create? More than one, presumably, or they wouldn’t have bred. Just two? Or what we might term a minimal breeding population? Or several different breeding populations, as there seem to have been several non-interbreeding groups in the past. Same with whales? And as for birds, well, there may be 10,000 species alive today, and any number of extinct ones…

 

[anon65111186]

Clearly, Biologists don’t have an evolution guidebook to figure things out.

Yet every biologist took 101 courses in Biology where they learn about evolution and all the subsequent models on the origins of species are based on that. Clearly they do have a guidebook, it’s usually in the form of College issued textbook, which has sources from the best minds of our time on the topic.

 

[Aloysium]

Gosh. I’m afraid I’m hopelessly confused by Aloysium’s explanations. Can someone help?

“Multi-celled were created ex nihilio utilizing the “information” contained in atoms and molecules.”

Sorry, may be idiosyncratic and there’s not enough words allowed to explain the explanation. I hope this helps:

Thinking about matter as information is based on an existential perspective that sees being as an act that is known. The Actor and Knower is God; what an atom is in itself is the information the Word of God has brought into existence. Possessing rational minds we can know that inormation through scientific research. As an atom is the one final division of any element, which it forms when coming together with more of its kind, a single cell organism is one being as itself, within its species and the environment. In multicellular creatures, all the information which goes into making atoms and molecules, shaping them into cells with the processes necessary for life, and coordinating them to work together, it is all subsumed by the reality of the one whole that is the creature itself.

Everything exists and derives its being from Existence itself, which is Triune in nature - Love. It is all created here and now as it was when it first came into being and at its end.

The structure and behaviour of everything can be understood as informing its being - what it is and what is does comes from the Word of God.

Everything is either part of something greater or in itself - at the basic level of physical being, we know there to exist photons as particles or surrendering that separate nature, becoming waves in a beam of electromagnetic energy. We are persons, having brought together all the information that constitutes matter and life, having an eternal and rational nature. Our individuality at the same time is an manifestation of one humanity, broken in Adam and reunited in Christ - Love.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Eh? Of course we do science by consensus. That’s the only way science progresses. A few people, or even just one, come up with a new idea, and place it before the scientific community, which either accepts it or rejects it. Usually they play with it for a while, repeat the observations, carry out experiments of their own, attempt to discredit it, but then, after a while, it’s ‘generally accepted’, or ‘generally rejected’. That’s science, and that’s consensus. Many ideas are still being bandied about, but the main principles of evolution are not among them.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I think I follow the philosophy, but what I don’t understand is what you think actually happened when the first elephant appeared on earth. Being derived from Existence itself is all very well, but what did it look like?

You see, I think the main problem most creationists have is, quite literally, the elephant in the room. They exist physically. Big grey trumpeting lumps of flesh and bone. They are not just theological constructs. There was a time when there were nob elephants, and we live in a time when there are elephants. How did they get here? It’s a simple enough question, especially if they were specially created, so why is Techno2000 the only one who can answer in physical terms?

Of course, we evolutionists will trot out endless generations of gradual variation, DNA mutation, environmental pressures and all the rest. We have a good idea, in detail, of how we think elephants evolved, and don’t creationists loving attempting to knock it. But if not, what did elephant creation actually look like?

 

[Aloysium]

There most certainly is an elephant in the room, a mystery and a source of wonder for anyone interested in the truth. Ganesh, an Hindu God has an elephant head.

I don’t really know, but I can speculate. I’m not sure if I have the time now since it would require a certain amount of research regarding their anatomy, physiology and behaviour. They are social animals with very complex emotional lives. They are known to mourn the loss of their loved ones.

One thing I do know is how it did not happen. It did not happen through an accumulation of errors in the DNA, reaching a point that they produced what we know to be an elephant.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000 - God literally moulding lumps of clay with disembodied hands

No , it doesn’t have to mean that, God could cause the atoms of earthly material to form and assemble into the image he wants them to be.

 

[buffalo]

It only takes one person to overturn all that consensus as did J. Harlen Bretz. He was ostracized and decades later proved right.

Science by its own definition is provisional and limited to what it can say about the universe.

 

[mVitus]

One thing I do know is how it did not happen. It did not happen through an accumulation of errors in the DNA

When it comes to genetic change over time, how do view dogs? And what do think of all the different races amongst humans? (There are physical differences between us from white skin to dark brown and so on.) Just curious how you view these.

 

[edwest211]

Not repeatable.

 

[Aloysium]

The variety dog breeds attests to the importance of psychological factors in creating diversity. It seems to me that through the instincts the same effect would result as animals, usually birds, chase their vision of beauty. Survival (aka Natural Selection) is the least of a number of influences that are behind diversity in life, usually just mopping up what doesn’t work, so that species can continue.

I acknowledge society’s concept of race. I don’t see there being anything more to it than surface morphology. If one thinks of genetic similarities and differences, there is more diversity in Africa than there is in the rest of the world. Yet people in general seem to believe there to be a black race. God is Father to all humanity, and each of us has the potential to grow in Christ to become His son or daughter.

 

[Techno2000]

There are physical differences between us from white skin to dark brown and so on.

 

[edwest211]

If you reference skull structure, you’ll see clear differences. They are there.

 

[mVitus]

My point with dogs and different races is how small genetic changes can impact a species over time. A poodle and a great Dane for example are different from wolves. Not mention Chihuahuas.
And with humans, we all share common ancestors, yet those physical differences became manifested over time, which is a way of demonstrating some of evolution’s principles in regards to change over time.

 

[edwest211]

I’m doubtful modern humans share a common ancestor. Adam and Eve were special creations. Hominids were animals.

 

[mVitus]

So Adam and Eve aren’t a common ancestor?

 

[edwest211]

Adam and Eve are the parents of all humans alive today. I’m putting hominids in the “not human ancestors” category.

 

[mVitus]

Well my point is still the same whether or not the ancestors are the hominids that gave rise to Adam and Eve or Adam and Eve themselves. They would’ve been the same race, yet we have many today.