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.
ratio1 said:
would anyone challenge there is gravity on earth?
Click to expand...
The biological equivalent to gravity as fact is reproduction. Along those lines, the theoretical physics equivalent to evolution wouldn’t, to my mind, be as sophisticated as the ideas of gravitons and the bending of space-time, but rather more like the ancient idea that objects seek their natural place at the cenrtre of the earth.
 
FYI: NASA has been doing a twin study involving astronauts Scott (who spent a year in space) and Mark (who stayed on earth as the control subject) Kelly. Recent findings include:
. . . spaceflight is associated with oxygen deprivation stress, increased inflammation, and dramatic nutrient shifts that affect gene expression . . . Scott’s telomeres (endcaps of chromosomes that shorten as one ages) actually became significantly longer in space. . . the majority of those telomeres shortened within two days of Scott’s return to Earth. . . Researchers now know that 93% of Scott’s genes returned to normal after landing. However, the remaining 7% point to possible longer term changes in genes related to his immune system, DNA repair, bone formation networks, hypoxia, and hypercapnia.
Click to expand...
There is obviously quite a lot more involved in the growth and development of a living organism than a fixed DNA structure. The genome is a complex set of information which is malleable, reacting to the environment and self-correcting where possible. A lot of this is built-in to the structure of cells and the organism as a living whole. It is what it is and some would go no deeper, and therefore call it random. It does have a discernable Cause, with an organizing principle that extends beyond the simple chemical interactions that define atoms.
 
Last edited:
“Hugh_Farey said:
The overthrow of the geocentric ‘solar’ system was a classic case in point, and the overthrow of six-day creationism was another.
Click to expand...
The 6+ days creation narrative of Genesis 1 has not been overthrown by science or anything. In fact, the actual scientific finds or facts (not theories) confirms it. For example, though God could have created the heavens and the earth (the physical universe) in all its completeness at once, the Genesis narrative paints a different story, God’s creative activity in the creation, formation, and the ‘peopling’ as it were the heavens and the earth with various creatures spans a period of 6+ days. Scientific discoveries confirms this. For example, the earth and the oceans are said to be much older than the first fossilized appearances of life that have been discovered and especially of complex multicelluar organisms. In the Genesis narrative, the marine animals are made by God before the land animals. Interestingly, in the fossil record, complex marine animals (the Cambridge explosion) appear abruptly before the land animals. Human beings finally appear in the fossil record rather recently just as it is said in Genesis 1.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission in the early 1900’s decreed that the six days in the creation narrative do not necessarily mean that God created or completed the formation of the world in 6 twenty-four days. Indeed, “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8) and “For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night” (Psalm 90:4). Peter or the psalmist could have just as well substituted million or billion for thousand. The sacred writer or Moses is using a literary ‘device’ or ‘six days’ for specific reasons inspired by God. One I have already mentioned, i.e., God did not create the world in all its completeness at once. Two, the creation narrative is built around the Israelites work week and the Sabbath. God sets the example for work and rest. The Sabbath rest is itself a deep mystery signifying as the CCC says I believe our hope for eternal rest in the Lord. The CCC gives other reasons and one could search for others in the Fathers of the Church or the saints. Deep mysteries are contained in Genesis 1-2 which we could only hope to penetrate in some degree with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the principle author of the Bible.
Click to expand...
 
(cont.)

I believe a serious error people make in interpreting Genesis 1 is thinking that because a literal 24 hour 6+ days creation and completion of the world by God appears to contradict modern scientific discoveries, for example, the appearance of land animals in the fossil record after the appearance of the marine animals appears to be measured not by one day but in many years or millions of years, than the rest of the narrative is simply a mythical story with no truth contained in it, albeit inspired by God. What I have already said above refutes this kind of interpretation and much more could be said. It appears from modern science that God’s creative activity ending with the creation of man spanned more than 24 hour 6+ days. Moses may have even thought so. Again, “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Accordingly, with this in mind, the ‘time’ factor is irrelevant but not so the creative activity of God which he finishes with the creation of man (male and female) and rests on the ‘seventh’ day.

What else besides taking the days of the creation narrative as literal 24 hour days which I have mentioned the sacred writer had reasons for doing so and some probably only God knows, has the natural sciences conclusively proven against the Genesis 1 narrative? Anybody?
Creationism can’t be demonstrated, concluded or inferred from observation, let alone proved.
Click to expand...
The heavens are telling the glory of God;
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours forth speech,
and night to night declares knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words;
their voice is not heard;
yet their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world. (Psalm 19: 1-4)

“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” (Romans 1: 19-20).

“The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the [natural] light of human reason, even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error” (CCC#286; Vatican Council I).

Did you get that? **‘The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works’**i.e. by observation of the created universe.

Consider also St Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs for the existence of God which are founded upon the observation of the world and sound philosophical reasoning, i.e., the natural light of reason. From observation of the world, i.e., second causes, we can reason to a First Cause and to a Creator of the second causes out of nothing.

From the nature of the fossil record i.e., the sudden and abrupt appearances of fully formed animals and plants, we can infer no doubt and reasonably the direct and supernatural creative activity of God. God’s creative and supernatural activity is beyond the competence of the natural sciences obviously, but it is not beyond the reach of the human reason or of faith. Indeed, faith and reason are not mutually contradictory but reason complements faith.
 
This has been debated here for a while. A few points.

There is a direct conflict with at least one set of persons in Genesis, Adam and Eve. The goal here is to replace them with a set of near human hominids. The Church teaches they had gifts, called preternatural, given to them by God, including bodily immortality. They had only one command to follow. They freely disobeyed God and Original Sin occurred on a spiritual and earthly level. So, while scientific inquiry is welcome, there are limits.
 
edwest211 said:
There is a direct conflict with at least one set of persons in Genesis, Adam and Eve. The goal here is to replace them with a set of near human hominids.
Click to expand...
The direct conflict you mention here concerns hypotheses or theories, none of which have been definitively proven to say the least and it is questionable whether the conflict in question could be proved by the natural sciences one way or the other. The near human hominids such as homo erectus I believe to be human beings, i.e., not near human hominids. The question concerning population genetics (bottlenecks for instance) is very speculative. However, the latest studies which I gave a link too in a previous post suggest that a bottleneck of two humans cannot be ruled out from just 500, 000 years ago.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
The point is not that evolutionists think the answers must lie in science, but that, as science is God’s way of running the universe, that they do lie in science.
Click to expand...
Science is a type of intelectual and active relationship that exists between mankind and the structure of the universe.

A person exists as a knower, knowing the known. Trying to understand objective reality, that which is outside ourselves as subjects, we are united with what is other through that knowledge. We might describe it as a structure, made up of components, individual things that are are brought into being from its Ground, Existence itself, One eternal and Triune in nature. Each individual form of being, exists in a moment that we might isolate from its historical reality, as a trajectory in time stretching from its creation to its end. We can know what is other, having been created objects of the One who brings us into existence as a loving act that we might share with Him in Jesus Christ, His glory. We know and we can act with a free will, and thereby have the capacity to love because we are loved. This is how I would describe the truth of our existence as seen through the light of faith and in the heart.

So when we speak of evolution as the means by which mankind came into being, we enter into a realm of illusion, a construct of phantoms whose truth said to lie in the simplest of physical interactions. Their being in themselves, their instinctive emotions and thoughts, the complexity of their behaviour, is all reduced to chemical processes, which are only the visible building blocks defining the creature in the contiuity of time and space.
 
“benjamin1973 said:
“Testing” means collecting more information, with controls in place to make sure that your observations are valid in the context of your theory.
Click to expand...
A theory regarding evolutionary events that occured millions or billions ago can’t be tested definitively. There may be some supporting circumstantial evidence, but this can be misinterpreted and so the theory could still be wrong … especially when evidence exists that contradicts it. So it’s ridiculous to claim that theory that can’t be verified as true or false adds up to “learning” and “understanding”.

You believe that the theory of evolution is true, but a mere belief is not a fact, and learning and understanding require facts, not beliefs. Small children believe in Santa Claus - does this belief add up to learning and understanding the world?

Furthermore, biological learning and understanding usually produces an applied scientific use, but more than 150 years of believing that man evolved from monkeys has not produced a single practical use. Perfect uselessness is exactly what one would expect from a biological theory that is false.
 
Last edited:
Evolution “science” is special - it is built mostly on assumptions and speculations that require no proof. But the aim of this junk science obviously isn’t to advance science; rather, its aim is to deceive the masses into believing the Bible is nonsense. If the Bible is nonsense, then the God of the Bible is nonsense too. So evolution is actually Satan Science. The scientific community gets away with preaching this mendacious poison because the scientifc community is a totalitarian cult controlled by an army of atheists.
 
Last edited:
Well try this instead: List all the experiments that confirm all life on earth evolved from microbes.

The list will be short - as in, zero entries.
 
That’s true. Things have seriously gone downhill since the 60’s. Welcome to the Great Apostasy.
 
I was there. I watched it build up and did not realize it right away but the great assault against the Church, the family and society in general had begun. The Church had enemies from the beginning. Now this. The Body of Christ in the West was slowly, gradually poisoned. And though there are some signs of it slowing down, most of it remains in motion. For those who think this is the 1960s, part two, surprises are coming, with a few in place.
 
Comparing gravity to evolution is typical of the extraordinary powers of logic that evolutionists possess. Some people have an insatiable appetite for junk ideas and junk science.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top