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.
Is hard to reason with a someone whose aptitude for honesty is as questionable as their aptitude for science and theology … or someone who runs away when their idiotic claims are challenged. Some people are just pretentious and “full of it” to bother with.
 
Last edited:
“Theistic evolution may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain while atheism removes his religion.” - William Jennings Bryan
 
Buffalo:
You’re really not getting this, are you. The answer to any question “Is it chance?” cannot be fully answered by a simple yes or no. If I say yes, then you’ll go back to your absurd BUC stance, but if I say no, then you’ll imagine I think every moment of the universe is wholly mechanistic. Neither of these is true.

Still. If this will help you you move on, in the most simplistic terms:
Does evolution have foresight? No.
Is it guided? Yes.
And not by chance? No.

Better now?

Richca:
True, in the strictest sense, the inevitability of a probability only occurs with an infinite number of trials. It is possible that throwing a million dice will still not turn up a six.

I would have to read Fr Chabarek’s analysis more fully to be sure of what he meant, but as stated, the quoted paragraph is completely wrong. It is a misuse of the ‘regression to the mean’ aspect of randomness, which does not apply in this case.

IWantGod:
Gosh! Thanks!

Richca:
“I’ll stick with God’s own creation story and his word for his word is certain and without error.” That’s OK, whatever suits you best.

Glark:
  1. It is not hard to reason with me. Try using … er … reason!
  2. If I have been dishonest, please point out where. If you can’t, please stop being rude.
  3. Run away! You’ll be lucky!
  4. By all means, run away yourself (sorry, I mean don’t “bother with” me any more).
 
Last edited:
Evolution has foresight?
No, it does not. Random mutations may or may not be useful in the present; they may or may not turn out to be useful in the future. They are random in their effects.
It is guided?
Only in the sense that natural selection will spread useful mutations through the population and reduce the number of deleterious mutations in the population. As environments change, so may “useful” and “deleterious”. Neutral mutations are not affected by natural selection.
And not by chance?
Natural selection is not a chance process. Neutral mutations are subject to genetic drift, which is a chance process.

rossum
 
Does the evolving from one species to another mean the extinction of the species it was evolved from?
No. You “evolved” from your parents; that does not mean that your parents immediately died. Many Americans “evolved” from Europeans; there are still Europeans.

An existing species may split into two, with one part moving to a new habitat while the original species remains in its old habitat. Polar Bears did this, moving into a new habitat while the original bear population remained further south and continues to exist.
Still looking for that…missing link?
Of course we are looking. That is why it is the missing link. As soon as we find a link it is a found link. 🙂

rossum
 
Last edited:
If I have been dishonest, please point out where.
in post #1058, you wrote this:

“Who on this thread has quoted an evolutionist out of context in an attempt to show that he didn’t really believe in it? Techno2000 (Patterson, Gould), Glark (Lewontin), ericc (Williams).”

Your claim that I quoted Lewonitn “in attempt to show that he didn’t really believe in it (evolution)”. This is nonsense; I did no such thing. So you’re either dishonest - or you can’t comprehend plain English and jump to stupid conclusions. Okay, I’ll recant the former accusation, and assume the latter.

Furthermore, I’ve challenged several of your points of view, but you ignore 99% of them. Instead of engaging me, you run away.

Now to another of your posts:
Glark: "You believe God created the entire universe out of nothing, can raise people from the dead, can convert bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in an instant, but you can’t believe that that same God can’t halt the flow of a little ol’ river for a couple of hours?”
Hugh_Farey: “Wrong, of course. As usual you confuse what God could do with what he actually did do.”

What?? The Bible describes “what he actually did do” - the book of Joshua says he stopped the flow of the Jordan river! You are the one confused about “what he actually did do”! Your problem is pride, my friend; you’re so full of yourself that you think you know better than the Scriptures. And your religion isn’t Catholicism, it’s some weird Catho-Scientism hybrid thing that is bizarre even by theistic-evolution standards.
Theologians thinking the bible and evolution are compatible. Brendan Purcell. Christoph Cardinal Schönborn. George Murphy. etc.
In the Catholic Church that I belong to, none of the theologians think evolution is compatible with the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Theistic evolution may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain while atheism removes his religion.” - William Jennings Bryan
Lol. People say that about religion anyway,

There are a number of atheists sayings that are supposedly mean’t to be taken as evidence, like faith is a crutch, religion is the opiate of the masses, an adult fairy tale we tell ourselves to escape from the reality of death.

All these sayings are designed to attack your sense of integrity and undermine your faith. It seems you have joined in.

I have heard it all.
 
Last edited:
never forget that all this may come using your own faculties and psyche. You even said you survived because of that voice. You got an extremes message in an extreme situation, perhaps saving your life.
It was someone else who posted about their experience, but interestingly I was in a dangerous situation when I was probably about ten. In those days things were pretty rough; everyone’s parents were working during the day and the neighbourhood kids basically raised themselves and each other. Nobody had taught me how to swim, but seeing kids diving into the deep water and having so much fun, I decided to do the same. So in I went, but wasn’t coming back up. Panicking and thrashing, of course if anything, I went deeper. A voice, the only one I have heard from someone not present, told me clearly to stop and let myself go. Relaxing, I floated to the top and made it to where I could get out. I don’t think I questioned what had happened at the time; I was just happy to be alive.

But, as thankful as I am, and as extraordinary and enlightening as the experience was, it is but an entry point to the miraculous. There are guardian angels as part of the structure of the spiritual universe, and I am sure they have saved others from me. Each breath is actually a miracle.

To quote Thorton Wilder’s Our Town:
“Good-by, Good-by, world. Good-by, Grover’s Corners… Mama and Papa. Good-by to clocks ticking… and Mama’s sunflowers. And food and coffee. And new-ironed dresses and hot baths…and sleeping and waking up. Oh, earth, you’re too wonderful for anybody to realize you.”
 
Last edited:
I think Noah’s Flood is symbolic or allegorical, and you think it is to be read literally. How shall we decide who is right?
Well, under normal circumstances we could defer to the consensus of the Church Fathers; in which case, I would be very surprised if even one of them considered the Flood be anyrhing other than literal. But theistic evolutionists’ respect for the Church Father’s on these sorts of matters is as non-existent as their respect for Scripture, so … continue to dwell on the exegesis lunatic-fringe, if that’s what makes you happy.
 
Last edited:
William Jennings Bryan was far from an atheist; he as a devout Christian - albeit one of those backward fundamentalist-types who reject evolution.
 
Last edited:
William Jennings Bryan was far from an atheist; he as a devout Christian
I know that, and my point is, not only is his statement an alarmist assertion preying on paranoia, he is not doing the faith of Christians any favors either. Rather, he is ironically helping the atheist agenda.
 
Last edited:
God only ordains the qualitative nature of the effect, thus allowing that effect to come about by natural means while at the same time determining the nature of it through the laws he has established.
The dichotomy between qualitative and quantitaive is utilitarian. It may be useful, especially with respect to the physical sciences, but it remains artificial. Each thing is whole in itself as a form of being. Mass, velocity and charge are qualitities that belong to simple matter. Those basic qualities can be compared, thereby giving birth to the quantitative. As we have free will as a quality that defines our being, atoms have qualities that allow them to be used to construct more complex material objects. They are used to bring into existence, more complex creatures, bacteria, plants, animals and we ourselves, each with their own qualities which add to the totality of their material form. God brings this all into existence as its eternal Ground. It can change in accordance to His will. The creation of atoms was followed by the creation of life. Atoms cannot spontaneously bring about living organisms of increasing complexity. Their behaviour is seen death, where in the absence of the organizing prinicple of the particular being’s soul, it all reverts back to the star dust it is.
 
Explain the guidance mechanism.

Your claim is evolution operates by blind guided chance.
 
Last edited:
I would be very surprised if even one of them considered the Flood be anyrhing other than literal
Except for a brief period of time towards the end of my teens and in my early thirties, I’ve always attended Sunday Mass. I can’t say why, given that until my kids were older, I didn’t say the complete Creed nor partake of the Eucharist because I didn’t believe what the Church told me they were.

But at a certain point, I started turning around, realizing more and more just how steeped I was in ignorance. Shielding me from that reality is the fact that my opinion in the world has actual monetary value. What did the trick was trying to respond to a dying friend’s question as to the nature of the soul. All I heard coming from my mouth was nonsense, nothing that could even approach the reality of that soul before me. “That’s nice”, was my friend’s reply. She was happy I was there and cared; I felt very sad and a bit of a clown.

As I entered into the faith, I decided to make or break it by picking the most incredible scripture and search for its truth. The fact that Jesus, whom I always understood to be the Son of God, mentioned Jonah and because it most certainly was a fish tale in both senses of the word, I picked it as my contemplative prayer. I went over and over the passages, each night analyzing it from a physical, psychological and spiritual perspective trying to make sense of it, reflecting on what assumptions I held that made the story appear untenable, and trying to elaborate how those beliefs had been derived. I would enter it like a dream, imagining myself as an observer and as each of the participants. I found myself to have many of the characteristics of the fish: a bit different from most, unique as we all are in ourselves, and on a mission in life to carry out my duties whatever they might be. In the coldness of the water, the unrelenting waves, going on and on into an uncertain future, where the fish and Jonah are one, having avoided but now moving toward the truth that is infinite joy, I was in them and they in me. There is more to reality than the myths we share to explain it. Needless to say, here I am.
 
Thank you.

You might like to explain why you quoted from Lewontin in support of buffalo’s creationism. There are any number of eminent creationists who have expressed similar sentiments, but you chose an evolutionary scientist. In choosing Lewontin, you promoted the implication that he, a famous evolutionist, actually supports creationism, which is untrue. And you have the cheek to call me dishonest!

The rest of your post clings to biblical literalism in an increasingly desperate way, and claims that you are supported by the Catholic Church. I think the crossing of the river Jordan did not happen literally as described. I think the episode is a deliberate reference to the crossing of the Red Sea. You made the sarcastic comment that I think this because I don’t believe God is powerful enough to provide the miracle as written, but that, as you well know, is untrue. God could have created the world in six days, and stopped the flow of the river Jordan, but I don’t think he did. When a Christian evolutionist says he doesn’t think God worked in a particular way, it is never because he doesn’t he doesn’t think God has the capability. But you say “You believe God created the entire universe out of nothing, […], but you can’t believe that that same God can’t halt the flow of a little ol’ river for a couple of hours?” And you call me dishonest!

Now this rather mean-spirited remark: “Your problem is pride, my friend; you’re so full of yourself that you think you know better than the Scriptures.” You know this is untrue. You have agreed that some of the scriptures are not to be taken literally. I think this story is one of them. You don’t. We differ. Where, how and why we differ is the whole point of this thread. And you call me dishonest!

And finally: “In the Catholic Church that I belong to, none of the theologians think evolution is compatible with the Bible.” Your contempt for the theological competence of the last three popes leads me to think that you do not belong to the Catholic Church at all. However, if you know of any theologians who do not think evolution is compatible with the Bible, perhaps you’ll name one?

And you call me dishonest!
 
No, it does not. Random mutations may or may not be useful in the present; they may or may not turn out to be useful in the future. They are random in their effects.
Then we should see examples of evolution bringing about something that is not suited to their environment.
Can you point these out?
 
Not many. If an organism is born which is less suited to its environment than its peers, it is less likely to survive to reproduce. If an organism is born which is more suited to its environment than its peers, it is more likely to survive to reproduce. However, we do see a few, in plants and animals, including humans. We call them inherited diseases.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top