Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

[Glark]

You forgot to mention that evolution is incompatible with Scripture.

 

[Glark]

I’ve never ever heard a priest preach against evolution. However I have heard a couple preach in favour of it.

 

[ratio1]

I’ve never ever heard a priest preach against evolution. However I have heard a couple preach in favour of it.

Tell me about it!!!
I once confided to a priest that I don’t believe in evolution and then he says “you know the church allows you to believe it, right?” and then looking at me as if I’m an alien from outer space.

 

[Glark]

I had a similar experience. My parish priest recently recommended to me two theologians whom he thought could help me get over my aversion to evolution.

 

[ratio1]

I had a similar experience. My parish priest recently recommended to me two theologians whom he thought could help me get over my aversion to evolution.

This is what I’m most upset about. Here I am just using plain common sense and logical deduction and I’m being treated as if I should go to a mental asylum.

 

[Techno2000]

Aloysium:

The biological equivalent to gravity as fact is reproduction.

That’s great. You put it well. I wish evolutionists realise this point.

Actually, that went right over my head.

 

[IWantGod]

I once confided to a priest that I don’t believe in evolution and then he says “you know the church allows you to believe it, right?

But you do realize that you are not acting against your Catholic faith if you accept evolution don’t you? Of course nobody is forcing you to believe in evolution or in anything related to science. You can be a YEC if you want to. But don’t be upset if people start looking at you weird.

 

[ratio1]

YEC

Yec?
Post must be at least 10 characters

 

[ratio1]

But you do realize that you are not acting against your Catholic faith if you accept evolution don’t you? Of course nobody is forcing you to believe in evolution or in anything related to science.

Of course. I believe in science. I just don’t understand why people believe in voodoo science like evolution. I should be the one looking at all these people weird believing in such illogical concepts.

 

[IWantGod]

Young Earth Creationist. They argue that this is the thing to be because it is consistent with a literalistic interpretation of genesis. They reject evolution and the idea of the universe existing more than 10,000 years ago for theological reasons.

 

[ratio1]

Oh I’m not like that. I believe in good scientific evidence. Geological evidence is fairly strong regarding earths age. The theory of evolution is a big stretch from science though.
As I said before when there is good science behind evolution I will have no problems in believing it.

 

[Techno2000]

Small children believe in Santa Claus - does this belief add up to learning and understanding the world?

Yeah … they learn and understand that the adults had been lying to them the whole time.

 

[benjamin1973]

First of all, evidence can always be misinterpreted. We are not God, and we are not perfect, either in our observations or our conclusions. All we can do is to observe carefully and to form ideas about our observations.

As for testing. . . you are talking about “experimenting.” No, we cannot experiment on dinosaurs. That’s because there aren’t any dinosaurs around. Nor can we plan and watch the evolution of a large-animal species in a natural setting, because we do not live for millions of years.

However, I’ve already given examples of testing, and your Santa example is a really poor one. Kids have done all kinds of experiments to see if Santa is real.

With regards to man evolving from monkeys. Nobody has said that, so saying so really reveals not only your ignorance of the subject of evolution, but the willfulness of your ignorance, because the basics have been explained to you now perhaps 100 times over 4 related threads.

It really does baffle me that you continue arguing with maybe a total of several hours of typing time, and yet you obviously haven’t bothered to read anything about evolution in order to better your arguments.

 

[ratio1]

Loading…

evolutionnews.org

I can’t find arguments against this. Perhaps I haven’t tried hard enough. Anyone who believe in evolution care to help?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Perhaps the fact that when I was at school my Science and Maths Teachers were Benedictine monks had had something to do with my balanced education, and subsequent teaching style.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

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.

You’re splitting hairs here, I fear. All gravity is part of the coherence of the universe, as is all evolution. Small local aspects of both are well recognised, such as cups dropping off tables and the breeding of rabbits. At cosmological and microscopic scales there is much debate.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Richca:

Me: “The overthrow of six-day creationism.”
You: The history of the earth shows that not everything was created simultaneously. The PBC said that the six-days could mean six billion years. The Creation Narrative is built around the working week. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Me: “The overthrow of six-day creationism.”

Genesis 1 is about more than time. What about fruit trees appearing before marine animals, or birds before land animals. What’s that a metaphor for?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

A theory regarding [creationary] events that occured [six thousand years] 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 [creationism] 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?

Square brackets mine. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Evolution “science” is special.

Most of astronomy is inaccessible to experiment either, but it is as valid a science as any other.

it is built mostly on assumptions and speculations that require no proof.

Still going on about proof? Why are you so persistent about it? Science is an explanation of observations, not a proof of anything.

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.

Most historical science was carried out before the bible was written or geographically too far away for it to have been known about. Wherever the bible was known about, most historical science was carried out by Christians in order to understand the bible better, in order to demonstrate that it is not nonsense. Within the last hundred years or so, there may have been scientists whose object was to “deceive the masses into believing the Bible is nonsense,” but their effect has been trivial compared to the effect of Biblical literalists, who have turned people away from it and converted them to atheism in their millions. Well done.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Top Five Problems with Current Origin-of-Life Theories | Evolution News

I can’t find arguments against this. Perhaps I haven’t tried hard enough. Anyone who believe in evolution care to help?

Absolutely.

1. There are no viable mechanisms for abiogenesis. This is founded entirely on the rejection of the 1950s hypothesis which initiated, rather than completed, the search for viable mechanisms, which continues with enthusiasm. Many have been proposed, such as the hydrothermal vent and the warm puddle, any of which may be perfectly viable, and investigation of which has given promising results. I have no doubt whatever that a viable mechanism will be discovered - may have already been discovered - before long.
2. Forming Polymers Requires Dehydration Synthesis. If this is true, then those models of the abiogenetic environment which require it will be discarded. The others will gain traction.
3. RNA World Hypothesis Lacks Confirming Evidence So what? This is one of many abiogenetic models, the correct one of which will only be confirmed when sufficient evidence is accumulated for it to gain acceptance.
4. Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code. This is a statement of faith, not a scientific problem.
5. No Workable Model for the Origin of Life. This is also a statement of faith.

To be fair, the first three of these problems are valid statements of limitation. However, rather than being insurmountable obstacles, they have been, and still are, stimulations towards the kind of investigations abiogeneticists continue to work on. They are helpful to scientists in that they narrow the field, not terminal blocks.