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.
Techno2000 said:
It was my conversion story when I was a young man.
Click to expand...
My sister-in-law grew up in China and was raised by very stanch Communist parents. So she was an atheist all her life and thought that Christianity was “nonsense”. Then, a couple of years ago, completely out of the blue, she heard Jesus talking to her - and not once, but several times. She is now a devout Christian.
 
‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” Richard Feynman

We see that evolution is never wrong and always adjusts to the observations. It is unfalsifiable and therefore nonsense.
 
I get that. Over the years, claims like that have become less and less credible to me. A cell is a mechanism, it is designed, it did not assemble itself. For all I know, the first cell had a random rock drop on it and it was back to the drawing board. Asexual reproduction requires machinery. The first cell would have required some sort of energy or food to sustain itself, but there’s just so much guesswork to make that a realistic idea. In the end, this thread, and more to come, will be spreading a belief message. Forever if need be.
 
ReadTheBible said:
Evolution is a religion not a reality.

If your religion is evolution you believe that nothing created everything and death is your hero.
Click to expand...
Not according to Catholic theology nor most Christian and Jewish theologians. Also, the ToE is not anti-God in any way since there simply is nothing in it that implies that God can’t exist.
 
One of the greatest evils that stalks the land, or so we’re told. It must be stamped out so that science becomes god.
 
The biology textbook negates that statement. Blind, unguided chance, not some story in an old book, did everything. It, not God, created man and all life
 
Hugh_Farey said:
This is where I see the hand of God, not in the self assembly itself, but in the provision of the initial conditions.
Click to expand...
There are typical patterns that atoms can take according to their inherent electrochemical structure that allows for their interactions with other atoms. Snowflakes are an example of how water molecules organize themselves into crystalline structures. It is the carbon atom’s tetrahedral shape that allows for the complexity of organic molecules. Beyond simple arrangements, there is no self-assembly in the creation of life.

One should also consider that living things are not merely a collection of atoms. That is but one way to understand an aspect of the wholeness that belongs to a new strata of being that organisms constitute above that of simple matter alone.

The assembly occurs under the organizational principle of the creature’s soul, which materially manifests itself within the unity of the living thing, anywhere from a single cell to a multicellular human being.

The initial conditions of life did not determine the final outcome. In fact it was through the exercise of our free will that we brought on the fall, and it could even be said to have created this universe, which is in movement towards its destiny in God.
Hugh_Farey said:
If God immediately directed Evolution, he could alter a bit of DNA exactly as required
Click to expand...
That’s probably kept things going in spite of random chemical change, which it should be remembered is the condition of decomposition seen when an organism dies.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
40.png
Techno2000:
It was my conversion story when I was a young man.
Click to expand...
My sister-in-law grew up in China and was raised by very stanch Communist parents. So she was an atheist all her life and thought that Christianity was “nonsense”. Then, a couple of years ago, completely out of the blue, she heard Jesus talking to her - and not once, but several times. She is now a devout Christian.
Click to expand...
When I was about 15, I told my Dad one day, that no one should be forced to go to(Mass) Church (which he did force me to do) and that it should be ones free will, and I caused a big scene in front of my house about this one day, and he reluctantly agreed. From that point on, until I was about 27 (I’m 54 now) I didn’t go to Church anymore. Then one day while bored and kinda depressed I was laying on my bed flipping the TV channels, and I happen upon a TV preacher who was talking about Jesus.

For some reason I liked what he was saying, and agreed in my mind that what he was saying was true, then it …“Happen”… it’s hard to describe the feeling. It was like some kind of incredible g-force pinned me to the bed, and at the same time it seemed as if my spirit came out of my body levitated a few feet above my flesh body and instantly… Love and Holiness rushed into me.

It felt like my spirit exploded into particles of love and Holiness and every little particle was saturated with Love and Holiness too, I was incinerated in God’s Love !!! This feeling slowly subsided, and I came back to my senses, and with the absolute knowledge that there is a God, and he loves sinners like me.

To make a long story short, a few month later after this experience I stumble upon my Dad’s Pieta Book, I took to it like a fish to water, and have been going to Mass ever since .
http://brizek.com/prayer/pieta.htm
 
Aloysium said:
I don’t think anyone has argued against that point. The issue is whether random chemical changes in the DNA, influenced solely by whether organisms survive or not to procreate, is a sufficient explanation for the diversity and complexity of life, the actual reality of organisms as whole beings in themselves and especially our existence as rational beings rooted in eternity. Tacking on God to what is a materialistic concept may help make it more valid, but cannot fix the problem of it’s not addressing the lack of continuity in successive generations that is especially clear in our own existence, but is also present when we think of the total difference found between matter and simple one cell creatures, as well as between them and plants or animals. It does not explain the psychological let alone the spiritual. The physical is only one dimension of what are ultimately living forms of being rooted in and created by Existence itself - the Triune Godhead.

Congratulations, by the way.
Click to expand...
First of all, thank for the congrats.

Also, many people attach things to the basic concept of evolution that simply are not intrinsic to it.

One of our greatest anthropologists was Fr. Pierre Teilhart deChardin (Jesuit), and he was the world’s foremost expert on Homo erectus when he was alive, and the only thing that got him in trouble with the Vatican was his concept of the “noosphere”.

How God works has always been up for debate, so there simply is no theological problem with accepting the basic ToE as long as it is understood God was behind it all.

Take care and enjoy the rest of the weekend.
 
buffalo said:
UPB is a reasonable and logical way to understand possibilities for events.
Click to expand...
The UPB is reasonable for events that are purely down to chance. However, chemistry is not purely down to chance, so the UPB does not apply.

If an event is not pure chance then the UPB does not apply. For example, consider the planet Earth. How many atoms are there in the Earth? Each of those atoms has the whole universe to move in. The existence of the planet Earth is well beyond the UPB. However, the UPB takes no account of the effect of gravity. Those atoms are not randomly moving in the universe, they are affected by gravity so the UPB does not apply. As soon as there is any non-random force acting, then the assumptions of the UPB break down and it is no longer applicable.

rossum
 
edwest211 said:
The biology textbook negates that statement. Blind, unguided chance, not some story in an old book, did everything. It, not God, created man and all life
Click to expand...
Since I have a graduate degree in anthropology and taught it for 30 years, I’ve gone through enough related textbooks to sink a battle ship, and what you say above simply is not true since these books do not deal with the issue as to whether there’s a creator-god or not, and most Catholic and other Christian theologians understand this.

The unfortunate reality is that too many people are especially taught by the more fundamentalist churches that it’s incompatible with belief in the Bible, as I was, and they don’t turn to serious theologians who have studied both the scriptures and the science on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top