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.
Can’t you see the misrepresentation and illogicality? By quoting a discussion about aspects of evolution among evolutionists as if it, and therefore some of them, supported ID is misrepresentation. They don’t support ID.
buffalo said:
Have the same conserved core components that are the building blocks of all organisms and features. In other words, from these basic first prototypes all life can be built.
Click to expand...
What’s this? Don’t just restate your premise. I was complaining about your corollary. “It is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator”. That is a complete non-sequitur, as I’m sure you know very well.

And my point about Spitzer is not whether he was correct or not. It was the weakness of the style of his argument. What can Science tell us? It can’t tell us this. It can’t tell us that. He doesn’t even tell us why.

What is a rabbit? A rabbit is not a biscuit. Or a pineapple. Gee, that’s useful!
 
Is that what you think it claims? Why did you think that?

The posts are to illustrate what the discussions are. There are hidden gems in these discussions.

“It is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator”. detail your objection.

You obviously did not read the entire thing,

As you delve into this your eyes will be opened to what is really happening out there.

The death of NeoDarwinism, No Selfish Gene

idvolution.blogspot.com

The death of NeoDarwinism, No Selfish Gene

IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com idvolution.blogspot.com

Rocking the foundations of biology
Here it is again - top down - DNA is not the sole transmitter of inheritance - paper after paper is now showing the inheritance epigenetic information - information is the driver. >

Neo Darwinism crumbling…

Loading…

idvolution.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
and that is the escape clause.

he senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
Code: 
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
 
buffalo said:
Skepticism is not allowed by the faith of evolutionism.
Click to expand...
Absolutely false as there are so many different aspects of the ToE that have long been questioned and still are being questioned. However, the basic reality that life forms have evolved on Earth no longer is in question-- just the details are.

Also, there’s no such thing as “evolutionism”.any more than there is “moonism”. One either accepts the basic reality of Earth having a moon and life forms evolving on Earth or they don’t.

As for myself, I would never be a member of a church that taught that we should avoid reality, no matter how painful that reality may be, and it’s one reason why I feel so much at home in a Catholic church than the Protestant church I grew up in.
 
Evolutionism

Evolutionism - A Broad Overview
Evolutionism is a world-view, which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe:

Organic-evolution. This is the idea that life spontaneously generated in a “prebiotic soup.”

Macro-evolution. This is the widely-held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers – all related. From the goo, through the zoo, to you over millions of years! This is the stage of evolution which Charles Darwin popularized in his classic, Origin of Species, published in 1859. Darwin didn’t invent the theory, but he gave it credence by supplying a plausible mechanism: natural selection.

Evolutionism
 
Last edited:
Sorry but I have no interest in going through all of this. If one doesn’t want to accept the reality of life forms evolving, that’s their problem.
 
Last edited:
There’s no compelling evidence that life evolved as commonly accepted.
  1. The claim that science is silent about God is false, as shown here.
  2. The claim that science can show at least part of the Bible is false is not a scientific claim.
  3. The claim is the Bible is false and science has the answer.
Be honest, this is all about disproving the Bible.
 

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

Further down the page, it gives observed examples, plus genome analysis has done much the same.

Life forms evolve as does all material forms, and genes are material forms-- pure & simple.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely false, but go right ahead and believe what someone has misinformed you on.

The ToE simply does not in any way negate the possibility of theistic causation, which is why Catholics have nothing to fear of it. The ToE simply does not posit the ultimate origin of everything, and if someone tells you it does, they’re either lying or are ill-informed.

Either way, I’m done with this.
 
This definition shows genetic entropy. They lost a function/ability to reproduce and we relable them another species.
 
But apparently, I share common ancestry with the pineapple. Intelligent Design makes sense.
 
I notice two things pretty much always happen:

When out of arguments always attack the poster (ad hominem)

-or-

Say - I am outta here…
 
That’s often true, so let’s buck the trend shall we? I’ve started to watch the Denis Noble films, but haven’t got to the place where he denies evolution in favour of ID yet. I tell you what I think when I’ve finished them.

However, I understand Metis1’s frustration when he hears “evolution says this” and “evolution says that”, when it does no such thing, and also when he hears personal opinions being touted as facts. You may well think that there’s no compelling evidence that life evolved, but I disagree. I think there is compelling evidence that you and I share common ancestry with a pineapple, but I’m prepared to accept that it’s possible you don’t.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
You must be joking. The science of gravity is open to challenge as much as any other science,
Click to expand...
No you must be joking.
Of course we are still discovering gravity on a cosmological scale. But would anyone challenge there is gravity on earth? Would anyone challenge that gravity causes acceleration towards the ground?
There are things which science has done plenty of experiments and no rightful mind would challenge this. The problem is evolutionists are elevating their theory to be on par with somethIng like this.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
I have recently retired from teaching in a Catholic School for over 40 years. In explaining the theory of evolution, I invariably discussed the religious disagreements with it. However, I do think that the UK is less hung up about the argument than the US
Click to expand...
Well my Catholic school did not teach any disagreements. It was presented as a fact. University education was the same. I’m not even talking about people arguing the case for evolution, people are speaking as if it is true already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top