Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

[edwest211]

Anyone want to buy a tree that’s been missing for around 200 million years? In all that time, it just survived.

 

[buffalo]

An entirely different argument. (as Dawkins said aliens might have done it) Do you now agree life is designed?

 

[vz71]

Nah. . . that would be crazy, right?

No, but what does it show?

 

[Glark]

I will say that I believe God behaves rationally

This explains nothing. I believe God behaves rationally too.

We obviously differ about the definition of miracles, so it would be wrong of me to argue against you using my definition. So I won’t.

I would bet my bottom dollar that your definition of a “miracle” is the very definition of “demythologization” - a common trait of Modernism and so-called higher-criticism - and that it is distinctly at odds with what the Church teaches about the miracles described in the Bible and the inspired and inerrant nature of Scripture. It is clear that when it comes to theology and exegesis, you become very confused and disorientated, and this had led you into error.

As a matter of fact, I’ve been on lots of atheists sites and a lot of them say godless abiogenesis is “inevitable”. Regardless, since you claim it is “inevitable” that life can arise naturally from inanimate matter, I really have no choice but to conclude that your become greatly confused when it comes to science, and this leads you into error.

You have, again (!), selectively quoted from a convinced evolutionist in a cynical attempt to show that evolutionists don’t believe in evolution.

Here is evidence that reality leaves you greatly confused, which leads you into error.

“To me, scientific understanding means one thing - the discovery of facts, which are established by observation and experiment.” Ah! To you! Well, that explains it. To scientists, scientific understanding means something completely different.

I agree with what you’re trying to say here. Theoretical science is unfortunately one of those areas of human endeavour that attracts more than its fair share of “the lunatic fringe”. This includes unfortunate folks, who, through no fault of their own, lack the common sense to grasp the very simple concept that “understanding” science requires demonstrable facts, as opposed to unverified theories.

 

[benjamin1973]

It is designed by interactions among organisms and environmental pressures.

 

[Glark]

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.

Lack of opposition to evolution in the UK is hardly a surprise - how many Christians are left there? Three? (I was once a big fan of the Royal Family and I thought they were Christians, but after the Queen signed that disgusting “marriage” Bill … bye, bye.)

It does not apply to the study of evolution, which is based exclusively on observations.

No, Hugh; your great confusion has led you into error.

Take for example the evolutionist claim that the inner-ear bones of a mammal evolved from one of the bones in a reptile’s jaw. No one has ever observed such a transformation. In fact, no one has ever observed any bone from any animal evolving into a differently-shaped bone in a totally different animal. Moreover, no observation anywhere anytime suggests that such a metamorphosis is even possible. And no one can prove that such a thing is possble.

So the claim that the inner-ear bones of a mammal evolved from one of the bones in a reptile’s jaw is 100% ASSUMPTION and SPECULATION. In evolution “science”, such speculations and assumptions are de rigueur; they’re everywhere. In fact, the theory that all life on earth evolved from microbes is completely dependant on such assumptions and speculations.

So, your statement that “the study of evolution … is based solely on observations” is clearly a nonsense. The truth is, the study of evolution is based on countless imaginary events that have never been observed.

 

[Glark]

His (deChardin) work on human evolution was monumental

de Chardin may well have contributed to the library of evolutionary bedtime stories, but his contribution to the advancement of science was zero. Evolution is a charlatan’s paradise - lots of claims can be made and lots of theories can be proposed, but none of them have to be tested or verified.

. If the Church were to try and stop scientific analysis, I, as a scientist, would leave in a heart-beat

You would leave the Church for the sake of a scientific theory that is
a) is a direct product of atheism,
b) cannot be tested and verified,
c) is 100% scientifically useless and
d) is contradicted by Scripture?
Wow, your devotion to the cult of Scientism is outstanding!

If the Church infallibly declared evolution to be incompatible with the faith, it wouldn’t be for scientific reasons, because the theory cannot be verified or falsified. The reasons would be theological.

 

[Glark]

Life forms evolve as does all material forms, and genes are material forms-- pure & simple

Deary, deary me; it seems you’ve been fooled by the word-games Darwinists play.

As the Wiki article says, “populations EVOLVE to become distinct species”, sure. This is called “speciation” and has been observed in Green Warblers, for example. A population of Green Warblers can EVOLVE into new species, but they are still Green Warblers. So although the Green Warblers have changed as result of speciation, in a sense, they haven’t EVOLVED at all, because they’re still Green Warblers.
Speciation in a Green Warbler population, although referred to as “EVOLUTION”, doesn’t mean they’re on their way to becoming magpies or eagles or pelicans.

So when an article uses the “EVOLUTION” word, you’ve got to figure out exactly what they mean, because there are TWO FORMS of EVOLUTION - one is factual ( eg, speciation) and the other is a untestable theory (eg, humans evolved from apes).

 

[Glark]

evolutionists are not allowing us to treat it as a theory and would like to impose it as a scientific fact like gravity as another poster pointed out.

Satan, the perpetrator of the evolution hoax, doesn’t want any opposition to his plans. This explains why the theory of microbe to man evolution - unlike other scientific theories - is not allowed to be challenged. The demonically-inspired cult that controls and dominates the scientific community, as its Master demands, will not tolerate dissenters and doubters.

 

[Glark]

However, although science cannot be proved, it can, and sometimes is, disproved. It can be disproved by the provision of a better explanation for observations, or by better observations. The overthrow of the geocentric ‘solar’ system was a classic case in point, and the overthrow of six-day creationism was another.

No, Hugh; your great confusion has led you into error. It is logical impossibility for a untestable theory to prove or disprove anything. The theory of microbe-man evolution is untestable, so it cannot possibly have disproved the " six days" account of Genesis.

 

[Glark]

In Exodus 20:9-11, Yahweh directly compares six literal days of human labour to the six days of creation. This suggests the six days of creation are each literally 24-hours long.

Genesis 1:14 refers to the sun and how it “separate(s) day from the night” and how it determines “days and years”. These “days” are unquestionably literal, so are we to believe that the " six days" mentioned elsewhere in the chapter are not literal?

The references to “one day = a thousand years” in 2Peter and Psalm 90 are intended to indicate that God exists outside of time and have nothing to do with the " six days" of Genesis 1.

The “heavens and the earth” (v.1) were created before the start of the “six days” (v.3), but who knows how long before? Maybe it was a short time, or a long time, or sometime in betweem.

 

[Glark]

A rabbit is not a biscuit. Or a pineapple.

There exists an entity called a rabbit pie. I imagine it’s safe to assume that, since the rabbit pie exists, a rabbit biscuit could also exist. In fact, a rabbit biscuit may already exist, somewhere in the world. These things being so, I suggest that one can say, without fear of reproach, that “A rabbit is a biscuit.”

Gee, that’s useful!

… which is more than can be said for the theory that all life on earth evolved from microbes.

 

[Glark]

Luke speaks of investigating the facts surrounding Jesus by consulting those “who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” - Luke 1:1-2

 

[Glark]

The 60’s marked the time when the Enlightenment finally dethroned Christianity as the dominant cultural force.

"the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against the saints, and shall overcome them, and kill them (Rev 1:7).

 

[Glark]

Don’t worry, the elect will be persecuted. Many thought Jesus mad as well, so you’re in good company.

 

[Glark]

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.

I think YECs have misinterpreted Genesis 1. My opinion is, it clearly says the “heavens and the earth” (v.1) were created before the ‘six days’ of creation began (v.3). So there exists the possibility that the earth could be much older than 6000-10000 years.

 

[Glark]

Geological evidence is fairly strong regarding earths age. The theory of evolution is a big stretch from science though.

While Genesis allows for a possibly ancient earth, I believe the Bible indicates that life on earth is no older than 10000 years. In fact, Jewish tradition holds that Adam was created 5779 years ago (this is the date published on the front page of many Jewish publications. 5779 = 2018)

 

[Glark]

Actually, a better example of my point is folks who believe in aliens - they have their “evidence” and a very strongly-held belief, but this doesn’t mean it’s true. Ditto for evolutionists (in fact, I put microbe-man evolution in the same category of Silly Things Humans Believe In as the aliens mob.

 

[Glark]

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?

Maybe it’s not a metaphor at all.

 

[Glark]

Confusion, Error. Disneyland