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.
Yep, that’s right. Mules are not a viable species.
This statement reveals part of the problem with our current thinking about life.

I would not consider mules to be a species. They are a form of a donkey-horse kind of animal, which “speciated” into what we classify as two different “species”. There are sufficient similarities between donkeys and horses that they can reproduce, I believe under unnatural circumstances, to give birth to offspring lacking the genetic material that allows them in turn to have healthy colts. Originally, it would appear most likely that there was a precursor to both, created with an intact genome, that gradually, through errors and adaptations, diverged. This is not evolution. I don’t believe it is devolution, but either a built-in material mechanism that allows for diversity or perhaps even direct supernatural intervention through animal desires and dreams of a perfect donkey and thoroughbred.
 
Last edited:
I have seen hereditary modification, but have never seen creation
You experienced it but have forgotten. You can retrace it, contemplating what is most real, your very existence as an expression of one mankind in your being a unique individual person, irreplaceable in yourself.
 
Last edited:
What you are trying to call “devolution” is actually evolution. But I’m a little confused-- you do believe in genetic change of a species over time. Obviously, if two populations are separated (like in different islands) don’t you think that would affect the way in which they “not really devolved”?
 
Last edited:
Okay, so were those kinds originally more homogeneous, or did they start out as separate species, in your view?
 
Erm… That was not an ID explanation of anything. I am still awaiting the ID explanation. If you don’t have one then just say so.
I was not taking intelligent design as science.
Apparently you do.
I will keep that in mind.
 
Yes. Sadly. The slow poisoning of the Body of Christ in the West took decades but the fruit of it is obvious. Perverted sexuality, an STD epidemic and the modeling of bad/wrong behaviors in movies and on TV. My brothers and sisters in Christ - turn your back on it. We have only two choices – move closer to God or away from Him. Choose life.
 
“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.”
 
Short version: not observable, not testable and not repeatable. We’re told a series of unguided events led to the development of all life on earth.
 
Is Darwin’s Theory of Evolution True?
As scientific observation and procedure, the evolution of species theory is part of well established science. It is a more than a theory and is well accepted by the Catholic Church as part of mainstream science and legitimate scientific inquiry.
Complex organisms (not souls, organisms) are easily proved to have developed from simpler organisms. Denial of these obvious processes in nature is not forbidden by the Church but is inimical to the Church’s integration of reason and faith.

Is evolution True? Not in any theological sense. No more than physics or chemistry.

These areas of discovery are physical SCIENCE, not theology.
 
Last edited:
Nice dodge. Please answer the question.
A man’s gotta know his limits. Getting into a debate about the purpose and value of science is gonna take a lot of valuable time and rob me of peace,
and seeing this is part 4.0 of this circular discussion…probably also a pointless waste of time.

Do some research if you have questions.
 
First of all, your post was well stated, but you’re fighting a losing battle to a certain degree because my long experience of covering this has it that, with some people, they either don’t have enough of a scientific background in the areas of biology, genetics, and physical anthropology, whereas the jump to conclusions about the ToE that simply are not there or only there as hypotheses.

Secondly, they often lack the theological background to understand the intricacies and controversies surrounding the actual writing of scripture, thus taking two viewpoints that simply are not supported by any evidence whatsoever: [complete] divine inspiration and inerrancy of the scriptures, for just two major examples. Therefore, to them, any questioning as to the literal veracity of almost any scriptural narrative is typically met with that anyone who does that is somehow trashing the Bible. To put it another way, they’ve basically turned the Bible into an idol of sorts.

About 30 years ago, I was at a theological conference representing my church whereas I ran across a Catholic theologian from China. Between meetings, he and i talked about the issue of biblical interpretation, and I’ll never forget his words, namely that he said all too many people think that the writers of scripture were literalistic-oriented historians writing objective history, which is what we would expect from someone writing today in western society, but the scriptures were written by traditional Asians and in a very subjective manner.

And he used the creation accounts (yes, there are two of them 1:1 and 2:4) as an example. He said, whereas a modern westerner would be inclined to ask “Did this really happen?”, the traditional Asian response would more likely be “What are they trying to tell me?”-- iow “the meaning behind the words”, which is a common phrase used within Jewish theological circles.

But what you and some others are doing here is very worthwhile in another way, namely to help those who may not be certain that there has actually been an ongoing evolution of species, so as to help them understand how and why we know that this has taken place, plus having them realize that there’s different ways of looking at some of the narratives, such as the use of allegory, metaphors, parables, and other forms of symbolism that are extensively used in traditional Jewish literature.

So, yes, I get frustrated at times, as I’m sure you do as well, but I think that it’s important for you and others to keep up the good work with your explanations.
 
Nonsense. The Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This has nothing to do with Jewish theology. The Bible is called the Word of God. Jesus refers to the Old Testament and the prophecies in it.

People need to remember the following:

"Real history

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

“In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).”
 
The Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This has nothing to do with Jewish theology.
Nothing to do with it? I think your local Rabbi would strongly disagree with that.

Why on earth do you expect people to believe what you say, when you say things like this?

As to “Real History”, all you need to do is show a bird (Day 5) that is earlier than a land animal (Day 6) like, say, Dimetrodon.

rossum
 
The information I quoted is from Catholic Answers.

And with all due respect to our (and my) Jewish friends, we are Catholics, not Jewish.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top