Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

[Glark]

No absolutes, no Essence, no Substance. All those capitalized words are merely reifications; they have no reality, they are just mental constructs.

I don’t mean to offend, but this sounds like a recipe for confusion and madness.

 

[Glark]

Do you think Buddha would beat Odin (the Norse god) in a fight?

 

[Glark]

Even Origen (who was obsessed with allegorical interpretations of Scripture) would agree that “days and years” and “day” mentioned in Genesis 1:14-18 are literal. That being so, it seems logically inconsistent that everywhere else in this short chapter, “day” can be interpreted symbolically.

 

[Glark]

The Fathers of the Church had various opinions concerning the meaning of the days in Genesis 1. Catholic Answers has an article with quotes from various church fathers with their various opinions here: What the Early Church Believed: Creation and Genesis | Catholic Answers

Be aware that Catholic Answers is very biased towards theistic evolution, so I would advise taking its opinions on any matters connected with evolution with a large grain of salt. For example, the vast majority of Church Fathers believed in a literal six days of creation (as did almost all Catholics until the latter half of the twentieth century), but CA seems to want its readers to believe otherwise.

An indication that ‘day’ in Genesis 1 can mean more than just a 24 hour day is found in the use of the word ‘day’ in Gen. 2:4 immediately following the Gen. 1-2:3 creation narrative “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.”

Yes, “day” in Genesis 2:4 doesn’t appear to be literal day, but chapter 2 is a different narrative to chapter 1.

The CCC#337 says “God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. 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.” Here, the CCC appears to suggest that the days of Genesis 1 need not be interpreted as 24 hour days which is consistent with the response of the PBC I mentioned above.

The CCC is also very biased towards evolution. It emphasises reading Genesis “symbolically”, but makes no mention of the fact that the Church allows the faithful to believe in literal interpretation. I presume this is because the theistic evolutionists who wrote this part of the Catechism considered a literal interpretation of Genesis to be so scientifically ignorant and pitifully out-of-date that it wasn’t worth mentioning.

 

[Glark]

. #283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.

“The question about the origins of … man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our KNOWLEDGE of … the development of life-forms and the appearance of man” (CCC, #283) is very obviously referring to evolution. That being so, this part of the CCC implies that the untestable theory of evolution is “knowledge”. But knowledge, necessarily, is the attaining of a fact, or facts - ToE is not a fact. So #283 doesn’t add up. The next sentence of #283 implies ToE is among scientific “discoveries” - since when does a theory that can’t be tested qualify as a “discovery”? This part of #283 doesn’t add up, either (… neither does the remainder of the paragraph, for that matter).

 

[Techno2000]

No, that’s not the reason. They are limited by physics. You can breed a dog that grows large with a small-dog heart, insufficient bone density to support the weight, etc., and it will likely die young.

Really motivated breeders will need a lot more stock, so they can choose those animals which are large, but also which have stronger bone structures, stronger cardio, etc. This also implies additional science instead of just eyeballs-- the ability to test for certain genetic disorders, ultrasound and X-Ray to check the animals’ organs, etc.

You can only push the limits of Mother Nature so far, after that it’s a dead-end .

 

[Glark]

we might be able to investigate the concept of Purpose, an understanding of which still eludes me.

Hugh, your lack of understanding is not surprising, but can easily be explained: As intelligent as you are, you have obviously (and rather embarrassingly) confused “Purpose” with “Porpoise”, a relative of the Dolphin. A Porpoise, therefore, is not a “concept”, but a marine-type-fish-thing that evolved from a mouse.

 

[Glark]

The Roman Martyrology gives the date 5199 BC as the year when “God in the beginning created heaven and earth” and the 2957 BC as the year of Nah’s Flood.

I disagree with the first date, actually, but I can accept that the “six days of creation” began in 5199 BC … “heaven and earth” were created prior to the “six days”, imo.

Theistic evolutionists, of course, would be very embarrassed by such dates, thinking “science” has proven them to be complete and utter nonsense. And as for the “Flood” … most of them believe it’s a total myth.

 

[Glark]

I agree - that’s why I don’t trust human beings to inform me about the origins of life - an especially a community of humans beings that is ruled by atheists.

 

[Glark]

. “Goddidit” is weak. Let’s start with that as a given. The question is HOW did He do it?

Exactly! I want science to explain how Jesus turned water into wine and how he raised Lazarus from the dead! Such explanations are vitally important to my faith!

Clearly, he didn’t make everything in its final form, because the forms found today are different than the forms of the past.

Paleontologists keep secrets, so how can they be trusted to inform us what is in the fossil record?

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms” … The extreme rarity of transitional forms (between the major groups) in the fossil record persists as the TRADE SECRET of paleontology" - Stephen Jay Gould. (emphasis mine)

 

[Glark]

Currently evolution has far more detail than creation.

Mountains of theories that can’t be tested add up to a big fat cloud of hot air that doesn’t convince me of anything.

 

[Glark]

I think roses are overrated. Sure, they’re very pretty and smell incredibly nice, but I suspect they’re not very intelligent. It’s fair to think of the rose as the “blonde bimbo” of flowers … unlike the cauliflower, which is attractive, smells nice and has very high intelligence. So while the rose is the flower-of-choice for shallow people, for people with more depth of character, the cauliflower offers much, much more.

 

[Techno2000]

cauliflower

I think roses are overrated. Sure, they’re very pretty and smell incredibly nice, but I suspect they’re not very intelligent. It’s fair to think of the rose as the “blonde bimbo” of flowers … unlike the cauliflower, which is attractive, smells nice and has very high intelligence. So while the rose is the flower-of-choice for shallow people, for people with more depth of character, the cauliflower offers much, much more.

And it kinda looks like a brain .

 

[Glark]

edwest211: Speculation

That’s all science ever is!

No, no no; I won’t stand this for this! You are being grossly unfair to evolution science - there is much more to it than just speculation! There are baseless assumptions, wishful thinking, vivid imagination and a penchant for fantasy and junk science.

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.

You failed to mention that evolution is contradicted by certain observations - such as sudden appearance and stasis in the fossil record, a distinct lack of transitional between the major groups in the fossils record - not to mention the stasis of “kinds” observed over thousands of years of animal and plant breeding by humans.

Evolution claims to explain a lot, but when one looks beyond the smokescreen of hype, endless theorising and fantasy, one finds it explains very little.

 

[Techno2000]

Evolution claims to explain a lot, but when one looks beyond the smokescreen of hype, endless theorising and fantasy, one finds it explains very little.

Actually it does explain a lot, I mean all those lines connecting to all those new species why would that be a problem?

 

[Glark]

Exactly. It’s a vegetable brain.

 

[Glark]

. Actually it does explain a lot, I mean all those lines connecting to all those new species why would that be a problem?

“The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” - Stephen Jay Gould

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

. Actually it does explain a lot, I mean all those lines connecting to all those new species why would that be a problem?

“The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” - Stephen Jay Gould

It’s not reasonable at all when one looks around and sees no Evolution occurring at all on this planet.

 

[Glark]

Charles Darwin “saw” evolution after ingesting a very large dose of mescaline while he was in South America. Perhaps you should try the same approach - some LSD ought to do the trick. Just like the forbidden fruit in Genesis, it will open your eyes to the truth.

 

[Glark]

When a Darwinist says “however reasonable”, be afraid, be very afraid.