Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doesn’t matter. The Biology textbook supposedly contains everything a person needs to know. The alleged process does not require any god, it simply happens.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
all evolutionist scientists firmly believe that it is the process by which some very basic original replicants, some billions of years ago, diversified into the complexity and variety of life on earth today. To a man, they have nothing to say to creationists when “you get them alone”
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, Richard Dawkins is completley indifferent to the idea of creation!
 
Hugh_Farey said:
So what should be taught in schools regarding evolution, in my opinion
Click to expand...
The conclusion that all life on earth evolved from microbes should be taught in schools as an example of what junk science looks like.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
What I mean is evolution is supposed to be triggered by new environmental changes that a animal has to face . How is the animal going face these changes if it has to wait millions years for evolution to evolve these adaptations ?
Click to expand...
Evolution can happen very quickly - I’ve seen tadpoles evolve into frogs in just a couple of weeks!
 
Techno2000 said:
What I mean is evolution is supposed to be triggered by new environmental changes that a animal has to face . How is the animal going face these changes if it has to wait millions years for evolution to evolve these adaptations ?
Click to expand...
Exactly, if the dinos died out and birds are supposedly evolved from dinos, how do you suppose that could ever happened if evolution takes millions of years to achieve its permutations and survival of the fitness? If bird’s DNA has similarities with dinos, and dinos died out before birds came onto the scene, then the other possible conclusion is that the dino and birds came from a common ancestor, and not from dino to bird i.e. a branch of dna block that survived the climate change that eventually became birds. We share common dna blocks with many other species but it would be far fetched that we came from fruit flies for eg.
 
edwest211 said:
Please reference a Church document that mentions hominids
Click to expand...
Hominids are referred to in Genesis - Adam was made from “the dust of the earth”, which is code for “hominid”. Come on, it’s so obvious!
 
curious_cath said:
Fighting evolution by the biblical Paradise story of Adam and Eve is bonehead fundamentalism
Click to expand...
The Church teaches that the faithful are free to believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. But to you this Church teaching is “bonehead fundamentalism”.
 
I quite often listen to the BBC’s “The Science Hour” and it often features a story relating to some aspect of applied biology. Fair enough, but the scientists being interviewed will then often offer an “evolutionary explanation” of how such-and-such evolved over millions of years … blah, blah, blah.

Non-discerning listeners don’t notice the subtle deception at work here - how useful science (truth) and useless theory (possible fiction) are both presented as one in shows like this - ie, the truth of a particular aspect of applied science is closely followed by some evolution propaganda - as if one is as important and relevant as the other, as if one depends on the other and as if one is as useful as the other. It’s such a con! The truth is, only the applied science is important and useful - on the other hand, the “evolutionary explanation” is 100% unimportant, irrelevant and useless.

This con job is repeated ad nauseam by the scientific community - David Attenborough, for example, is a master of Darwinist propaganda. His natural shows ALWAYS feature plenty of useless and irrelevant stories about how some creature or other evolved over vast eons of time. He would improve the quality of his shows considerably if he just presented the facts and kept his pointless evo-fairy tales to himself.

Evolutionary science - in stark contrast to applied science - has never produced anything of any practical benefit or use to anyone - it’s just empty, fruitless talk.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Wow. I mean the connection makes no sense…
Click to expand...
To the Church’s theologians the connection makes perfect sense: The “dust of the earth” - inanimate matter - is allegory for a pre-existing living creature (in this case, a hominid). Wow, this is simply brilliant theology! Who’d have thought inanimate matter could be equated to a living creature? This exegesis is so brilliant that an idiot like me finds it completely incomprehensible!
 
Last edited:
curious_cath said:
Darwinism in its original form is extremely crude and primitive. No scientist would follow thge original exposure of Darwin’s theory as he himself presented. However, an avalanche of evidence confirms evolution as a genuine phenomenon to carry out the work of God in the universe. Another way to say that is God initiated evolution by the famous divine sparkle to carry out the laborious work of creating different life forms and intelligent human beings on earth.
Click to expand...
To date, no evolutionist has the answer on how inanimate matter somehow became alive. They don’t have an answer to how the information to build the very first dna/rna come about. Who/what put that program code in there? When the planets cooled down, suddenly life appeared on planet earth only. Evolution begins when life began. Even so, there is not enough time for evolution to do its timely thing to differentiate into so many complex lifeforms. Each life form requiring its own set of DNA/RNA data to be what it is, to reproduce and so on. There are no reasonable natural explanations for the source of new information (name removed by moderator)uts to differentiate suddenly in the cambrian explosion for example.

I am open to your version of darwinism that can explain all these. I have left school a long time and may have missed the latest developments. I haven’t seen a breakthrough on Haldane’s Dilemma too.

Also I have noticed a lack of developments on darwinism for the last 20 or so years. No major breakthroughs. So it is unlikely, new answers are coming. Don’t let anyone fool you that darwinism has the answers to basic life formation.

Is evolution true? Of course. Except it does not have the magic bullet for the most crucial questions.
 
What a pity that Glark and edwest211, instead of trying to find out why evolution has conquered the scientific world as the process by which God has ordained his universe, have resorted to a not untypical childish mockery of it. It really gives creationists a bad name, so thank goodness Aloysium is trying to address the situation sensibly. Thank goodness, too, for Techno2000’s honest championing of a literal interpretation of the bible. It’s a shame that neither Glark not edwest211, in spite of some encouragement to do so, are not bold enough to state what they do believe rather than spend their time fruitlessly saying what they don’t.

Ericc, try reading the wikipedia article of the evolution of birds. You do not have to believe it, but you should try to understand it. Then you will be able to point to specific difficulties with the theory rather than vaguely wondering how it works.
 
Sorry, it was my personal view. This is how I see. Of course, everyone has a right to believe in literal interpretations. But you have to see the irreconcilable conflict with your own reality.
 
I tried to distance myself from the original “purist” form of Darwinism which gives a quite atheistic impression anyhow. The divine sparkle must be present everywhere in the universe, which is tilting the randomness of a materialistic evolutionary process into an upward spiral of divine path.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top