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.
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
But, the spirit in yourself comes from God.
Click to expand...
As you know I am Buddhist, and my scriptures say differently:
“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:7
Click to expand...
rossum
Click to expand...
Did rebirth start with chemicals and progress to
the Prokaryotes and so on and so on ?
 
Mutation is a built-in ability. Not evolution.

The flu shot is based on something observable, testable and repeatable.
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Scott2:
fundamentalist
Click to expand...
If it took fundamentalist to open the eyes of Catholics about this matter, then I applaud them.I learned about the flaws of Darwinism from EWTN 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
maybe you need to define what you mean by Darwinism. Do you use that “ism” in terms of philosophy or science theory/method? Catholics certainly can believe in the scientific theory of evolution.
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Hugh_Farey:
Ah! Perhaps that explains it.
Click to expand...
It was 30 min. of 1 show that aired that I happen upon, from a professor of theology.The point was, I didn’t learn about it from a “fundamentalist”.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church on Evolution
Is it possible for good Catholics to believe in evolutionary theories without contradicting certain teachings of faith such as original sin?

 
Scott2 said:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
Scott2:
fundamentalist
Click to expand...
If it took fundamentalist to open the eyes of Catholics about this matter, then I applaud them.I learned about the flaws of Darwinism from EWTN 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
maybe you need to define what you mean by Darwinism. Do you use that “ism” in terms of philosophy or science theory/method? Catholics certainly can believe in the scientific theory of evolution.
Click to expand...
I do believe in evolution… tadpoles evolve into frogs,but I don’t believe Man came from some kind of Ape like creature.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
Ok, so it took 10,000 steps each of modifications for evolution to produce these two birds.But it only took evolution 5 or 6 steps to produce Man. 🤔
Click to expand...
Steps of what? You clearly have no idea what you’re asking, so you can hardly expect me to.

And no, tadpoles do not evolve into frogs.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
Steps of what?
Click to expand...
Stages/Steps/modifications…

“any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”-Origin of Species, Darwin
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Scott2:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
Scott2:
fundamentalist
Click to expand...
If it took fundamentalist to open the eyes of Catholics about this matter, then I applaud them.I learned about the flaws of Darwinism from EWTN 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
maybe you need to define what you mean by Darwinism. Do you use that “ism” in terms of philosophy or science theory/method? Catholics certainly can believe in the scientific theory of evolution.
Click to expand...
I do believe in evolution… tadpoles evolve into frogs,but I don’t believe Man came from some kind of Ape like creature.
Click to expand...
That’s referred to as “Evo-devo” and not what’s being discussed.
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Hugh_Farey:
Steps of what?
Click to expand...
Stages/Steps/modifications…

“any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”-Origin of Species, Darwin
Click to expand...
Nothing in the science refutes the theory. That you’re skeptical about evolution is fine. But it’s on you to falsify the theory and present an alternative scientific one.
 
Techno2000 said:
“any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”-Origin of Species, Darwin
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. However, in this passage, modification (as Darwin knew very well) is not a technical term with a precise definition. It is possible to give it a more precise definition, and then to make more precise estimations of how many are required to change something into something else, and even how long such a process would take. But your “five or six steps” seems a bit wild. Where did you get that from?
 
I’m not sure what you mean. They are made known in Genesis and referred to later in the Bible, which is one of many sacred writings inspired by the Holy Spirit as part of the tradition and community that is the Catholic Church.

They are the first human beings existing in time, also represented in the psychological archetypal symbols of an innocent humanity, the wholeness of opposites united in love, and of our fallen nature, virtues corrupted by sin to become vices, among others.

They are the first of a new creation that is mankind, having known God and having refused to be His children, now struggling to return to the destiny for which we were made, to be in eternal communion within the Trinity.
 
Last edited:
Not really. I had to guess what Techno meant by ‘producing the Vulture and the Hummingbird’ and having decided, I translated the rather vague ‘stages’ into ‘generations’ which is much more specific, and intrinsically falsifiable.

Techno: “From the picture…didn’t you see it ?”
Ha, ha…
 
Last edited:
Fr Spitzer is clearly a very intelligent and knowledgeable man, who presents a coherent explanation of his understanding of creation and evolution. The YouTube video unfortunately is rather superficial, addressing only evidence that supports his claim and thereby not comprehensive on the issues involved.

If people were satisfied with his response, they would no longer bother posting on these threads. I don’t post on forums that discuss aliens from space for example, because such discussions are purposeless. Fact is that current scientific explanations of our history are not satisfying to our desire for truth.

I have a very bad opinion of Darwinism, seeing it as presenting nothing more than an illusion, not unlike that of saying that we exist within a globe punctuated by stars and spinning in a westerly direction above us. It is also bad science, and not science actually, but rather a pseudoscientific story that uses scientific data that could be called factual. It’s ideas are so ingrained that it is difficult to separate the facts from the myth. Most people see them as one.

We can more likely reach an understanding of who we and how we got here in contemplation of what is this moment in which we individually exist and focussing on the creation aspect, secondarily elaborating how evolutionary principles might fit with that reality.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
Fact is that scientific explanations of our history are not satisfying to our desire for truth.
Click to expand...
It never will be satisfying…if it were Faith would have no significance.

Philosophically, the scientific method makes no attempt to “prove” truth. Science is about skepticism and denial. All hypothetical questions are valid. If you ever watch shows about ancient aliens note the wordplay by the narrator: “…as some ancient alien believes theorize.” In science you present a hypothesis and then you try to prove that hypothesis wrong by presenting convincing counter arguments. As more evidence is presented supporting the theory and the inalienability to prove it wrong, using counter evidence, the theory grows stronger…but like traveling to the north star…science will never get to Truth. That’s the realm of Faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top