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:
Slipping and sliding - all to always make evo fit. Now you are redefining things.

You have been exposed, to the posters here.
Click to expand...
A bit too cryptic, I fear. What do you think I have redefined?
And I’ve no fear of exposure. I do not lie to defend my argument. I do not need to.
 
We’re talking about evolution, and you wanted to go on about the transitional nature of life and the soul. Is that an argument FOR or AGAINST evolution? Cuz it looks to me like you got bored of trying to discuss the OP and just decided to free associate on the word “transitional.”

I’m not anti-Catholic. But I’m anti-ignorance. My position is based on faith not only in the existence of God, but in certain aspects of His nature:
  1. God is alive, and is as much connected to everything that happens as He was when the Biblical texts were written.
  2. God is not a trickster. He didn’t bury fossils to confuse us.
  3. The Universe, being an expression of the will of God, is a good chance to learn about His nature-- so long as we are willing to learn.
In such great an effort to make reality conform to a couple of Bible passages, which anyway are open for interpretation, some are willing to twist and distort the very real and well-supported evidence documented by scientists, many of them Catholic.

I’m not trying to use evolution to argue against Catholicism. I’m using Catholicism as a basis for understanding why empirical observations and good science are so important-- because they are one face of our natural curiosity about God’s Creation.

Faith should not be synonymous with willful ignorance.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
I was just pointing out what you claim transitional is. Then I asked - since you say there are no transitional fossils, the evo’s that claim there is - who is right? Please explain.
Click to expand...
This has already been explained. Every fossil can be seen as both transitional or not transitional, depending on the way you are thinking about it.
 
Kei said:
Which is why it is frustrating if one is to think of them as the same days of the week beyond a metaphorical analysis. All creation has been made anew in Christ, this is Scriptural. We believe not only in the things written down but passed on.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what your point is. I think that, when written, the days of Genesis were understood to be literal 24-hour days, but that theologically there is no need to consider that were literal days, or even periods of time at all. No evolutionist should feel himself a theological outcast because he sees Genesis as mythological. However, a literal six-day creation has no place in science.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
A bit too cryptic, I fear. What do you think I have redefined?

And I’ve no fear of exposure. I do not lie to defend my argument. I do not need to.
Click to expand...
You cannot and will not accept empirical science requirements, because then evolution is a bust. If you can slip and slide your way to a more lenient definition all sorts of nonsense can get in. Evolution cannot pass the observable, repeatable and predictable test.

Therefore ------ it is philosophy.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
However, a literal six-day creation has no place in science.
Click to expand...
And for the same reason evolution fails. As you well know by now, only recently has science excluded the supernatural from its knowledge quest. Science is about the full truth.
 
That is the answer: it is only a philosophy or worldview, nothing more. It is not subject to the rule of being verifiable, or even useful. Thank you for the exposé.
 
Techno2000 said:
I freely admit that I’m an amateur at this stuff, I just want more details.And what I learned from these threads is that a lot of the details are just glossed over because Evolution has to be right.
Click to expand...
That’s OK; no one can be a expert in everything. And to be fair, a lot of details, on a discussion forum, do get glossed over. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t there. Many of your posts consist of questions (sometimes the same one over and over again), the answers to which would be much too long in detail for posting here. but they are researchable. If some wanton creationist arbitrarily throws out the word whale, I tend to go off and look it up. There are literally hundreds of scientific papers devoted entirely to the evolution of whales, based on observations of hundreds of fossils which share some features with modern whales, but which are not common to any other type of animal. Not a single conclusion is arrived at without a reason. If somebody thinks this fossil lived in the water but ate terrestrial plants, this is not derived from any preconceived ideology, or the fact that the scientist is an atheist, but by a study of the bones and teeth of the specimen. One of the biggest mistakes creationists make is to claim that evolutionists act as if evolution has to be right. The reverse is the case, even if they are convinced evolution is right, they still act as if they were determined to prove it wrong.
 
Techno2000 said:
How about hypothetically a million lifetimes what would an observer see ?
Click to expand...
I often consider this in my teaching. Imagine you had a small picture, the size of a postage stamp, of your mother, and she had one of her mother, and she one of hers, and so on, for a million lifetimes. And that these million stamp-sized pictures were all arranged, one after another, along a picket fence. Say each picture is three centimetres wide, so the whole line of pictures is three million centimetres, that’s thirty kilometres long. Or, if you like, each picture is projected onto a screen, each one facing into the next, every half second, taking nearly a week. At the start is your mother, at the end a thin, lemur-like monkey. Then all you have to do is to spot the points at which one species begins and another ends. Of course, it is impossible. The changes from one generation to the next, at any point, are so tiny that they are undetectable. That’s what evolution looks like.
 
buffalo said:
You cannot and will not accept empirical science requirements, because then evolution is a bust.
Click to expand...
What on earth do you think this means? What is an “empirical science requirement”? Your last few posts have been comprehensible but wrong. This one is incomprehensible and wrong.
 
At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_01
 
buffalo said:
And for the same reason evolution fails. As you well know by now, only recently has science excluded the supernatural from its knowledge quest. Science is about the full truth.
Click to expand...
Could you put a date on the time in which “a miracle occurs” was excluded as a step in a mechanism proposed as the way some physical change happens in the natural world? I do not remember that ever being allowed in scientific debates.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
Techno2000:
How about hypothetically a million lifetimes what would an observer see ?
Click to expand...
I often consider this in my teaching. Imagine you had a small picture, the size of a postage stamp, of your mother, and she had one of her mother, and she one of hers, and so on, for a million lifetimes. And that these million stamp-sized pictures were all arranged, one after another, along a picket fence. Say each picture is three centimetres wide, so the whole line of pictures is three million centimetres, that’s thirty kilometres long. Or, if you like, each picture is projected onto a screen, each one facing into the next, every half second, taking nearly a week. At the start is your mother, at the end a thin, lemur-like monkey. Then all you have to do is to spot the points at which one species begins and another ends. Of course, it is impossible. The changes from one generation to the next, at any point, are so tiny that they are undetectable. That’s what evolution looks like.
Click to expand...
I suppose if you want to make it all sound plausible you can liken it to watching grass grow, but that doesn’t work at all for me… just answer my question directly… thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top