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.
Metis1 said:
You forgot to mention that evolution is incompatible with Scripture.

Your interpretation of scripture, and the Church doesn’t agree with you since it allows for the basic concept of evolution as long as it is based on God creating all. This has been posted many times before here and with links to Catholic sources
Click to expand...
It’s my belief that the Church will eventually change her mind and infallibly declare evolution to be incompatible with the faith.
 
buffalo said:
Remember Eve coming from Adam? Remember polygenism is not allowed?
Click to expand...
Theistic evolutionists have time and again demonstrated that they don’t care about any objections the Church raises. They don’t respect Scripture so why should they respect the Church? Scientism rules, ok?
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
I want someone to explain the “intelligence” of horses and donkeys, or lions and tigers, being interbreedable. Evolution has a very clear and sensible explanation. I want to see how ID proponents tapdance around this one.
Click to expand...
I’m actually not sure what you mean by “ID proponents”, but lions and tigers, horses and donkeys, belong to what Genesis 1 describes as a “kind”. (I wouldn’t be surprised if a domestic cat could theoretically breed with a lion or tiger.)
 
benjamin1973 said:
They start with God as an axiom,
Click to expand...
Starting with God as an axiom is scientific and perfectly rational, since it is scientifically impossible for life to arise from inanimate matter. In other words, the scientific evidence demands a Creator.
 
Last edited:
I wish to disagree with you both.
Science cannot prove or disprove God.
Hence creationists start with God as axiom. Evolutionists start with there is no God as axiom. True science start with the axiom that we don’t know whether there is a God and simply examine the scientific evidence. This is what true ID scientists do.
 
Wow! There’s as brilliant a display of classic creationist smoke-screening as I’ve ever seen! Still, as the persiflage drifts away, there’s still nothing much there.

First we have buffalo, who defends ID, but has nothing to say abut it. It’s credibility is defined only by perceived weaknesses in the theory of evolution, and misguided ideas about ‘proof’.

Then we have Richca, who has refined all of Genesis so that it fits evolution precisely.

And the wonderful Glark, who is committed to literalism, and thinks that fruit trees were created before marine animals, but whose defence of this is restricted to out-of-context quotations from evolutionists.

And edwest211? I’ve got a good idea of what he doesn’t believe in, but no clear idea about what he does. I’m guessing basically ID.

This all amounts to a general ‘I believe the Bible is true because I can interpret it any way I want in order to repress atheism’ philosophy.

Splendid. But such a shame that it has had exactly the opposite effect.
 
Glark said:
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.
Click to expand...
This deserves a more specific answer - lucky you. The observations of which I was speaking were observations which anybody can make, of the variety of ear-bones that we find in fossils of successively older animals. Of course nobody has watched evolution, and I don’t claim anybody has. What I can do is lay out a lot of pictures of ear-bones in chronological order, observe the differences between them, and ask myself how to account for them. Maybe each new design is the result of a new creation. Maybe each new design is a hereditary modification of the one before. On the basis that I have seen hereditary modification, but have never seen creation, I think hereditary modification is a better explanation.
This isn’t proof - it was never intended to be. It is an explanation. It makes no assumptions. It is based solely on observation.

If you can explain why your explanation is better, I will change my mind.
 
vz71 said:
Tapdance around what?

I am uncertain I see a problem here.
Click to expand...
Horses and donkeys can breed and produce live, but infertile, offspring: mules and hinnys.

Lions and tigers can interbreed and produce live offspring: ligers and tigons. However the female crossbreeds are fertile, unlike female mules and hinnys. Male ligers and tigons are always infertile.

Evolution has an obvious explanation for this. What is the ID explanation for what we observe with these four species?

Any good scientific theory provides explanations for observations. What is the ID explanation for these observations?

rossum
 
I’m offended I didn’t make it on your list! 😂🤣

Anyway have you got a answer to my chicken egg question yet?
 
vz71 said:
I provided that.
Click to expand...
You gave us a “perhaps”, and a personal opinion. That is not science. I was looking for the ID explanation. Do you have one to give us?

If ID cannot explain things, then it does not augur well for iD as science.

rossum
 
benjamin1973 said:
ID is where curiosity and an eager intellect go to die, so far as I can tell.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell concepts of evolution are what happens when we stop being curious and stop using our intellect, accepting a version of reality ready made by others that suits some common purpose, typically to blind ourselves to the the truth which demands that we love one another.

For example, I would hazard a guess that if one were to plot the beliefs of a population along a spectrum of belief from Darwinism to Creationism, there would exist an inverse relationship between the degree to which one believes that random mutations and natural selection played a role in our formation and the belief that taking the life of an unborn child is wrong.
 
I don’t think you know what “axiom” means, or “begging the question.”

It’s fine to take God as an axiom. But if you are trying to “research” whether God is behind material, and you’re already taking God as an axiom, then what are you doing? Just drawing circles.
 
Of course it is science, but searching for a cause beyond what is found within the material world. The label “pseudoscience”, I suspect is used to keep people away from it. Most people have a fear of drifting too far from accepted social convention. We don’t want to appear too quirky. It’s a dilemma when the quirkiness of society becomes clear. In such cases it boils down to Susanna’s predicament, in the Book of Daniel, either to venture into the inecurity that comes with being true to oneself or go along with the lie and be considered wise by others.
 
Last edited:
Richca said:
Fruit trees mentioned here may have some ‘hidden’ significance
Click to expand...
To me it signifies what you alluded to that God prepared the earth for the upcoming creation. It wasn’t random at all. Again, as is well known, Genesis was written to explain the creation of the world in terms understandable by those who wrote it down and for all future generations, by both children and adults of any intellectual capacity, through the grace of the Holy Spirit.
 
Of course. If it were a perfect theory, then nobody would need to keep researching it.

But not knowing is not considered a failure in science. It is the refusal to follow the steps of observation, theorization, and testing which are a failure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top