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.
(continued)

God can produce the effects of second causes such as the light and warmth of the sun without the second causes (for example, the sun) themselves. Possibly then, by God creating light before it seems the sun (historical sequence interpretation) maybe He is teaching us that he is himself not bound by his own creation or the laws he has placed in things or maybe that we should not get to puffed up or prideful about our own ‘scientific’ knowledge of nature. Yes, nature is rational but ‘don’t forget’ that God is the very author of nature and its laws and he is not bound or tied as it were to them.

One last thought. I think the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) that astronomers observe is actually not from the Big Bang but is the remnant of that first light God created in the heavens when he spoke:

“Let there be light” and there was light. (Gen. 1:3)
 
Last edited:
Known* species of plants, etc.

Otherwise if you’d find another species under the strict consideration of your words it’d mean speciation occurred.
 
I don’t think “stuff that can kill you” is magical. Nor is “Dead animals make no offspring.” Nor is “Genetic traits help or hurt one’s chance for survival.”
 
Last edited:
Well, yes. Any that weren’t, at the least, fully functional organisms would die and contribute nothing of their genes to future generations. By definition, nonviable variations or mutants didn’t get to be “transitional” anything.
 
You understand that every thing that ever lived is a “transitional stage,” right? Including me and you, assuming we are lucky enough to reproduce and for our kids to do the same.

It’s only our conceptual view that requires a collection of animals at a given moment to fall under the umbrella of a word. The truth is that from day one to now, there is a rainbow of infinite complexity with trillions of living things getting their chance to live under the sun, and struggle to prove that THEIR traits deserve to persist.

This is remarkable if you think about it. My ancestors had a 100% success rate. Absolutely 100%, in surviving and reproducing. Don’t underestimate the importance of those countless generations-- they were once the end of the line, and they’ve passed the torch in a never-ending relay.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
I don’t think “stuff that can kill you” is magical. Nor is “Dead animals make no offspring.” Nor is “Genetic traits help or hurt one’s chance for survival.”
Click to expand...
No, the magic comes in when you mix the perfect environmental pressure with random mutations.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
We don’t throw out Genesis at all. And we don’t “twist” its meaning: Creationists do that, with all their struggling with baramins and the etymology of the Hebrew word for ‘day’ and all that jiggery-pokery.
Click to expand...
What would a rational, unprejudiced mind conclude regarding the length of the “six days” of creation from the following passage of Scripture?

"Six days you shall labor and do all your work … For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. " - Exodus 20:8-11.
I’m not sure who you mean by a “church father”. They are usually identified as ancient or medieval theologians, of whom very few seem to have doubted the possibility of a global flood. The only one I can find is called “Pseudo-Justin”.
Click to expand...
A “Church Father” is invariably a saint, for one thing. Your suggestion that “Pseudo-Justin” might be a Church Father is laughable - as far as I can ascertain, no one even knows his real identity!
The Roman Martyrology was written in the sixteenth century. What is your point? Do you think the Catholic Church still teaches what medieval theologians thought about science?
Click to expand...
No, the Roman Martyrology demonstrates that for 99.999% of the Church’s history, Genesis to Esther was regarded as literal history. But for the sake of very dubious and untestable “scientific” theory, many Catholics has decided to throw 2000 years of tradition out the window in favour of the historical paradigm of an atheist cult. That is disturbing.
 
Last edited:
With with respect to that part of my post re the atheist cult: It is a fact that most (if not all) evolutionary scientists are atheists. I imagine most (if not all) scientists who research the possibility that life arose naturally from inanimate matter are atheists. I bet most cosmologists are atheists.

With respect to that part of my post re the scientific irrelevance and worthlessness of evolution: If you provide an example of a scientific use for the “information” that all life on earth evolved from microbes, then I will recant my claim (I’ve been on the lookout for such a use for years and have never come across one).

With respect to that part of my post re the comparison between evolution and Scientology: Most spheres of human belief feature a “lunatic fringe” - science is no exception.
Please take the time to learn the correct meaning of “empirical evidence”. There are different forms of evidence - for example, empirical and circumstantial. Fossils are empirical evidence that certain creatures existed in the past - and nothing more. Fossils are considered circumstantial evidence of evolution by some scientists. But don’t bother looking for empirical evidence of microbes evolving into humans - there is none, because such a process cannot be verified by observation or experiment. However, there is empirical evidence of some forms of “evolution” - bacteria “evolving” antibiotic resistance (microevolution), for instance.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Those scientists, among them Darwin, who formulated Evolution, did not “assume the starting point of reality is mankind evolved naturally from microbes.” Nor do any modern scientists.
Click to expand...
Again you have demonstrated your naiveté. Atheist scientists would believe in evolution even if there were no “evidence” for it (as Dawkins suggested). The imaginary " evidence" they’re come up with merely reinforces their a priori position that since there s no God and there was no creation, all life on earth must have evolved from microbes. If I didn’t believe in God and creation, I would probably come to the same conclusion, regardless of what Darwinism has to say on the matter.

You probably think evolution is a new idea that is the result of modern “science”, but it isn’t - the idea goes back at least 2500 years.
Creationism does not begin with observations. It begins with the book of Genesis, which contains no observations at all, only unsupported statements of fact.
Click to expand...
As is the wont of evolutionists, you insist on applyng the rules of science to religious faith.
I can’t remember if you have said you were a literal six-day creationist or a ‘period of time’ creationist,
Click to expand...
I believe what is written in Exodus 20:8-11, ie, the “six days” of creation took literally six days of 24 hours duration each. But I accept the Church teaching that the “six days” may be interpreted literally or symbolically.

Unlike theistic evolutionists, creationists who believe in a non-literal “six days” are not in the habit of dismissing the historical books of the OT as myth or allegory.
That’s wholly untrue. I’ve been looking at fossils since climbing about in a disused gravel quarry when I was five or six. I have seen fossils in their stratified sites, for myself, and looked at them in museums and laboratories, and have a small collection of my own. Naturally much of my knowledge of them is from books and papers, but they are books of what they look like and where they are found, not evolutionary explanations of them. They are ssential to a scientist precisely because he does not “believe what he is told without questioning".
Click to expand...
Your independent studies led you to the independent conclusion that man evolved from microbes?

Your petite fossil hobby hardly qualifies you as an authority on the entire fossil record and paleontology. When you have gained a Ph.d in this field and have devoted 100 years to studying the entire fossil record first-hand, then you might be able to claim to know what it contains. But until such time, like 99.9999999% of evolutionsts, you will continue to believe what you’re told without questioning.
I don’t call those who believe in Creationism “native and gullible”.
Click to expand...
No, but you regularly call them “dishonest”, which is far worse and genuinely offensive.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
What animal or plant today is not successful at reproducing?
Click to expand...
The Northern White Rhino.

rossum
Click to expand...
Where is the new and improved transitional form of this rhino. Did evolution let this one fall through the cracks ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top