Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
This requires a tree of life.
Click to expand...
As Gould stated, evolution’s Tree of Life contains many “inferred” gaps. These gaps are filled by employing some of the pillars of evolution science - Vivid Imagination, Assumptions, Wishful Thinking.
 
You mean the loss of the ability not to have stripes, the loss of the ability not to have a thick mane, and the loss of the ability not to run 90mph?

Yeah, I’m gonna say those are all NEW traits, not lost ones. I don’t think there was ever a God-made licheetiger, or a cheetiglion, or whatever you have in mind.
 
Last edited:
Cyril said:
You know Darwin believed in God right? His model wasn’t created the with the assumption there was no God.
Click to expand...
In Darwin’s day, pretending to believe in God had its advantages, as far as the scientific community was concerned (unlike today, where the opposite applies).
 
A dinosaur can grow all the feathers it likes - it still ain’t gonna fly.
 
Richca said:
It depends on what theology or whose theology one talks about.
Click to expand...
Current Catholic theology, insofar as there is such a thing. Say the compendium of thinking reflected in the Catechism and Encyclicals, except that where they contradict, the Catechism beats the Encyclicals, and more recent Encyclicals beat old ones.
Before the novel advent of Darwinian evolutionary theory and the origin of species in the latter half of the 19th century, it is an historical fact that in the entire theological Tradition in the Church, the origin of the various kinds or species of plant and animal life was due to God’s direct or supernatural creative activity.
Click to expand...
I dare say. That was then and this is now.
I think christian and catholic theistic evolutionary theory is either hardly compatible or not at all with it.
Click to expand...
I dare say. and you’re entitled to your views. However, I follow Catholic theology as outlined above, dynamic as it is, not theology of Glark, Richca, Edwest etc., which seems to me a little fossilised.
There is no mention in the Scriptures of a singularity from which the world evolved,
Click to expand...
Nor fridges, for that matter. The list of what Scripture doesn’t mention is long indeed.
Now, I’m not arguing that a catholic at present cannot hold or rather believe in some form of theistic evolution within the limits defined by the few statements concerning it by our recent popes including Pope Francis. The Church appears to allow it presently without saying that it is true obviously.
Click to expand...
Thank you. It also allows me to believe in a heliocentric solar system, and the appearance of marine life before fruit trees, in spite of clear biblical indications to the contrary,
I’m essentially just stated some facts here concerning the Church’s theological tradition.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I was fully aware of them before.
 
Glark said:
[Me:] Paula Haigh, thought exactly that.
[You:] Citation, please.
Click to expand...
Yey! Selective quotation! Go the creationists!
But seriously, in her article Stanley L Jaki: Surrealist, Paula Haigh discusses geo- versus hello- centrism, and quotes approvingly the statement of a “Royal Swedish astronomer writing in l667”, that “5. We always see half of the heavens and the fixed stars also in a great half circle, which we could not see if the earth moved, and especially if it declined to the north and south.” I think this implies that the earth must be flat, don’t you?
The ignorance, stupidity and pig-headedness of evo-deniers makes me sick!
Click to expand...
Really? Although of course I recognise the irony, I also note that sentiments of “ignorance, stupidity and pig-headedness” are much more often aimed by good Catholic creationists at nasty Satanic evolutionists than the other way round. Seems like angels are more foul-mouthed than devils…
I can’t stand fools who disrespect the beautiful truth of evolution by cracking stupid, childish jokes about it. These insolent infidels should be re-trained in concentration camps.
Click to expand...
Really? Oh… (See what I mean about vocabulary though)
The reverse can be done too - get a fish and try and coax into onto land. It’s amazing how quickly the fish will get the idea and start walking about on its fins, catching prey and stuff.
Click to expand...
Ah! Now you’re beginning to get the idea. That’s exactly what happened.
Hey, here’s an idea! Super-heat the ground they walk on - this will encourage them to jump up in the air and take flight. (I’m not very smart, but every now and then I come up with something brilliant!)
Click to expand...
There are a few desert reptiles which do something quite similar, but the fossil record does not suggest to me that escaping hot ground was the principal impetus behind the evolution of flight.
I think what Hugh was trying to say was, even though the possibilities of evolution are amazing and dogs can be bred into jewellers, it can’t be accomplished immediately … or something like that. (Sometimes I can’t follow some of Hugh’s profound ideas coz I ain’t got smart enough and ain’t got evolved enough.)
Click to expand...
Keep attending, O gracious pupil, and wisdom will be yours eventually.
Being cold-blooded, a few feathers might provide some insulation, which might allow it to move to a colder climate, when non-feathered crocs can’t go.
Click to expand...
Wow! You’re almost there.
How can you consider a theory is “true”, if a theory cannot be proven?
Click to expand...
Most of the things we think are true cannot be proven. I did not say the theory was true, only that I considered it true. We pursue our lives according to a model of the world which mostly suits us well enough, presumably because it fits the real thing reasonably closely.
This doesn’t mean everything they say is nonsense. Even ToE contains some truth.
Click to expand...
Very true.
 
Nope. That was either God or the Devil, depending on your view of that particular person. 😃
 
I think that goes without saying in evolutionary circles. It’s all the same random stuff that managed to survive. And, at some point won’t. Seeing oneself as a creature, known and loved by a Creator, that which grants us the capacity to know and love in turn, gives us a different perspective on things.
 
edwest211 said:
What was the trigger for the Big Bang?
  1. The Big Bang exploded into what? Nothing?
  2. After the explosion, gravity just sort of appeared?
  3. Planetary formation is still poorly understood.
Click to expand...
There was no trigger; the universe was created; its ontological structure was brought into existence in a stepwise fashion that constitutes the progression of time. All this from eternity.

The universe did not explode. Time and space grew. There is nothing physical otherwIse.

Gravity was created as a property that defines the interactions of particles having a mass. But this is a bit more complicated from what I understand, having to do with what we call space-time.

Everything is poorly understood imho.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
Lions, tigers and cheetahs are evidence for macro evolution. They are clearly related, but have speciated.
Click to expand...
They are expressions of the same kind of animal.

Macroevolution would have it that fish could become turtles and Saccorhytus coronarius became mankind.

Reminds me of something Glark said:
Glark said:
Two of the pillars of evolutionary biology are Baseless Assumptions and Blind Faith.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If a cat can be descended from a common ancestor with tigers, lions, cheetahs, etc. and wolves, dachshunds, and red foxes can have a common ancestor - could scientists be correct that bears and dogs have a common ancestor?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top