Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

[Glark]

The truth of evolution

Sounds like fallacious evo-propaganda to me. You seem to be getting theory confused with truth. A truth is something that can be proven to be so. But as you know, a theory cannot be “proven”, therefore it can’t be called “truth”.

Are you saying it’s a fact (ie, it can be demonstrated empirically) that all life on earth evolved from microbes?

 

[Glark]

You forgot to mention the most beautiful flower of all - the cauliflower. And they smell incredible too (imo)!

 

[Glark]

I believe it was 100% supernatural catalyst.

Fundamentalist!

 

[Glark]

Incidentally, I think education should be useful, so did you spend 40 years teaching Catholic kids that life on earth evolved from microbes? It’s thoroughly useless information.

 

[Glark]

I came across some Catholic “rad trads” who seem to believe the earth is flat. For the sake of their sanity, I hope they’re joking.

 

[Glark]

If you are interested in the history of garden flowers you can easily find lots of information on the internet.

Although I will probably die an evo-infidel, I think there is a lot of merit in the Darwinist theory that flowers evolved from a dragon.

 

[Glark]

What did the dinosaur evolve from ? Lets see… it started out tiny, then millions of years later it became huge, and then millions of years later it became tiny again…really ?

With evolution theory, all things are possible (thanks to the marvels of a vivid imagination).

 

[benjamin1973]

No. You said “kept them well fed and cared for,” not “just fed.”

If they are well cared for, then they are no longer at the mercy of environmental pressures. Unless you breed them toward bird-hood, they are never going to be birds.

 

[Glark]

Don’t forget the “fish gills” in human embryos. And what about all those tiny, widdle cells in the human body? They are powerful evidence that humans evolved from a single-cell organism!

 

[Glark]

I’m glad you picked up on this. Scott2’s (from previous thread) claim that “Saint Augustine argued against a literal interpretation of Genesis. He actually chastised those that did” can easily be demonstrated to be erroneous and absurd.

For starters, there is absolutely nothing in the Augustine quote Scott2 supplied that supports his claim.

Then there is the fact that about 99.9% of the Church Fathers believed in a very literal interpretation of Genesis 1 (Augustine himself believed creation took an instant, but he never opposed the literal “six days” view held by others).

There is also the fact that, from the very beginning of the Church, she has taught that the faithful may believe in the literal “six day” interpretation. Indeed, this interpretation was held by the vast majority of Catholics until the latter half of the twentieth century. Catholics who held alternative views formed a very small minority.

Scott2’s “Augustine” argument has been trotted out many times by other evolutionists, who evidently have no idea of how lame and false it is.

 

[Glark]

Evolution has got a lot of maybes. A bit too many.

I think you are being a bit unreasonable describing millions of maybes as “a lot”.

 

[Glark]

If I owned a dinosaur ranch for 60 million years and kept them well fed and cared for why would my dinosaurs change into birds ?

Sure! If a sausage-dog can be bred form a wolf, birds can be bred from a dinosaur. It’s called evolution.

But you realize, of course, that is illegal to keep dinosaurs in captivity.

 

[Glark]

I’m fairly sure my ancestors started from swamp water

Actually, Genesis says Adam was created from “the dust of the ground”. This doesn’t sound like swamp water was involved, but it may have been, since “the dust of the ground” is probably meant to simply imply “inanimate matter that was present on earth”.

 

[TheOldColonel]

I think this because as I age I’m slowly turning back into swamp water.

 

[Glark]

They wouldn’t, because you are controlling the environmental pressures on your species.

What “environmental pressures” would change a dinosaur into a bird?

 

[Glark]

I think this because as I age I’m slowly turning back into swamp water.

LOL!! I think I know what you mean - the older I get, the more I’m convinced I’m evolving into a corpse. It’s crook (an Australian expression), but it proves evolution is true.

 

[TheOldColonel]

I became suspicious when my 23andme report came back saying my DNA is 30% mosquito.

 

[rossum]

When the last dinosaur finally bit the dust,

It hasn’t yet. You can see dinosaurs flying around today. Better to have said, “When the last non-avian dinosaur finally bit the dust.”

did the ground soak up its DNA

I suggest that you study the process of decay of a dead body, and the role of bacteria in that process.

and birds popped up out the soil…

No. Birds had already evolved and were living alongside the other dinosaurs. Try imagining a big meteor hitting earth now, and killing all the land and marine mammals, only bats manage to survive.

I don’t get it.

Obviously. You need to do a lot more studying. Ignorance is curable, if you put in the work.

rossum

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Your understanding of the word vague is different from mine. There are usually a number of valid possible reasons how the evolution of any particular organism occurred, often in conjunction. I smile at the idea of you looking at a menu in a restaurant: Beef Stroganoff, Chicken Kiev, Pizza Margarita, Salmon Steak… “Vague…”

 

[Techno2000]

ratio1:

Why has evolution slowed down?

Why is this thread only 4.1 not 5.0?

Yeah! I have the same question and I demand an answer!

Because, the busybody keep crying… part this…and… part that…why this thread never ends?This thread will end when it dies a nature death.