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.
edwest211 said:
I wonder why fraud occurs and is presented as science. “shape current views of the world”? That sounds like propaganda.
Click to expand...
Scientists, like Creationists, encompass all sorts of people, from the downright wicked to the mildly saintly. Some misrepresent the information as they find it in order to bolster arguments of which they are certain, but for which they have insufficient evidence to persuade others. Others just lie. The difference between Scientist fraudsters and Creationist fraudsters is not the variety or extent of their villainy, but the fact that the scientists do not cling to a religious book which forbids dishonesty as the justification of their wrongdoing…
 
Yeah, all those cat-like animals are probably completely unrelated to each other. It’s just a coinkidink.
 
Assuming you are addressing the idea of macroevolution.

There is clearly diversity, expressed within the cat family in the various forms of tigers, lions, jaguars, house cats, and so on. Most of it is an artistic expression of Existence, some of it adaptive. None of it, except for genetic defects, is truly random.

Trees die off and branches grow no further. They no longer produce leaves (individual organisms). They can however sprout seeds which gives rise to new trees, each branch producing different sorts of leaves.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
Assuming you are addressing the idea of macroevolution.

There is clearly diversity, expressed within the cat family in the various forms of tigers, lions, jaguars, house cats, and so on. Most of it is an artistic expression of Existence, some of it adaptive. None of it, except for genetic defects, is truly random.

Trees die off and branches grow no further. They no longer produce leaves (individual organisms). They can however sprout seeds which gives rise to new trees, each branch producing different sorts of leaves.
Click to expand...
How do you say some mutations “random” and others are chosen?

Why do you feel free to conclude that Darwin was not describing the mode of artistic expression chosen by an Almighty God who does not make arbitrary laws but rather bases all of His laws on the natural laws of cause and effect built into His creation?
 
Last edited:
There’s also clearly diversity, expressed within the mammal class. There’s also clearly diversity, expressed within the animal kingdom. Branches on branches. It’s almost like. . . animals are related to different degrees based on when each branch diverged from its parent.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
Trees die off and branches grow no further. They no longer produce leaves (individual organisms). They can however sprout seeds which gives rise to new trees, each branch producing different sorts of leaves.
Click to expand...
This may express some profound mystical truth, but it is botanically unsound.
 
benjamin1973 said:
Yeah, all those cat-like animals are probably completely unrelated to each other. It’s just a coinkidink.
Click to expand...
They are related because they are part of the links in the food chain that God created to support life on Earth.
 
Evolution also seems to provide a further reason for concupiscience perhaps.
 
edwest211 said:
Speculation.
Click to expand...
That’s all science ever is!! If you want to get into a science debate, though, you have to get out of the sniper’s nest eventually and come up with a better explanation of known data than the one you’re shooting down.

The theory of evolution as it now stands suffers from lack of a mechanism by which a complex species with one number of chromosomes could give rise to a viable breeding population with a different set of chromosomes. The problem is that the opponents don’t even have a theory that just lacks an important piece. They don’t have a plausible theory at all.

Darwin has been dead for going on 136 years. It isn’t as if no one has had time to come up with something better. It is not plausible that the Almight has strewn bones and fossils around in discrete geologic layers (compared to, say, layers showing volcanic eruptions or other geologic events) giving evidence of animals that never existed within a false timeline. It is not plausible that these “fossils” are just rocks given the benefit of someone’s imagination. It is not plausible that the Almighty just threw a few extra organs or structures in to a few animals that only look like they are vestigial features. What IS a plausible alternative, then?
 
Last edited:
“Goddidit” is weak. Let’s start with that as a given. The question is HOW did He do it?

Clearly, he didn’t make everything in its final form, because the forms found today are different than the forms of the past. Therefore, it was God’s intent to set Creation into motion, and then let it play out. God’s world is a dynamic one, in which change is both allowed and expected from the start.

Evolution is far more in accord with this truth than ID is. We don’t really need to go beyond the Bible to know that God intended for a progressive world.
 
You can keep parroting this word, but you have a problem: you are up against a pretty compelling kind of speculation, one which accords very well with fossils and with DNA. Keep in mind that a particular interpretation of the Bible is speculation too, since God is infinitely greater even than the Bible.
 
edwest211 said:
Intelligent Design as opposed to ‘the blind watchmaker.’
Click to expand...
It is impossibe for this particular Watchmaker to be blind.

I do not know how people can understand that there is no chance involved in whether or not a Vegas casino is going to come out ahead on a given night, let alone in a given year, yet they imagine that God left the world to chance. I don’t think they quite get what it means to have an Infinite Understanding of creation.
 
Last edited:
That’s the thing that offends most: that ID proponents do not think that God could set in place a system of chance, and still fully express His will in outcome.

“Chance” is just another word for “so complex that it’s beyond human comprehension or the ability to predict.” Surely, nothing meets that definition when we’re talking about God’s intellect.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
Therefore, it was God’s intent to set Creation into motion, and then let it play out.
Click to expand...
The difference is that God is infinitely capable of understanding cause and effect, to the most minute detail.

When Our Lord said that God knows the numbers of hairs on our heads, that may have seemed like an overstatement; it was an understatement.
 
Last edited:
Details?

Okay. . . there used to be T-Rexes, but they are not here now. There used not to be chickens, but now there are chickens. There were no people, but now there are 7 billion of us.

See? Different.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top