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.
Step 1: Ignore data from people who don’t agree with you
Step 2: Refuse to look for data of your own
Step 3: Shout “La la la la” as loud as you can when anyone tries to explain it to you.
Step 4: Quotemine (and misrepresent the quote you’ve mined) to justify your position

Sounds legit.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
However, in the event that a sheep environment existed in which having pink horns gave them reproductive dominance, that’s how the non-pink sheep would die out. The pink horns were able to hide in pools of cherry custard, while the others were more conspicuous, and more likely to be eaten by the giant sheep-tiger. So the pink horns had more babies, and the smooth whites had fewer. And thus they slowly dwindled in number until the last one was eaten, and the giant sheep-tiger either had to evolve to digest horns or it would die out itself…
Click to expand...
That’s why this thread has gone on for so long, all I get is gibberish answers …as Glark says.
 
Last edited:
No it doesn’t. The butter on my toast isn’t definitive proof of God. But that doesn’t mean that it’s proof AGAINST God either. It doesn’t even mean that the butter isn’t in some way a little blessing bestowed on me by God.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Ha ha! Another one bites the dust. This article debunking Evolution is from a Creationist website, quoting another Creationist website as its authority, Now come on, what would you think if I quoted Richard Dawkins debunking Creationism?
Click to expand...
I noticed you did not address the actual paper and experiment.
Typical… always try and attack the source. The only legitimate source is an evo supporting one. You have been exposed again.
 
The six days of creation describes a series of miracles, so vegetation existing before the sun is a mystery that I accept as a just that, a mystery. However, as described in Revelation 21, light can exist without the sun. Genesis describes what happened (history), not how it happened (since miracles defy explanation).

(Note: If you’re wondering what “Revelation” is, it’s the last book of the Bible … and the Bible is a book written by God and is revered by Christians as sacred and inerrant.)
 
So what? You haven’t demonstrated on any level that evolution isn’t a Catholic answer. And, so far as I can tell, nobody who is supporting the Theory of Evolution in this thread has attempted to use it to disprove God or the Catholic faith.

At worst, some have suggested figurative interpretations of points of faith that you prefer to take as literal.
 
Wait, would you mind re-linking the scientific paper, please? I’m willing to read it and comment on it.
 
benjamin1973 said:
Yeah, there’s an important difference in how ID came to be, and how evolution came to be. Evolution wasn’t created for any purpose other than explaining Darwin’s observations about animals.

ID was quite specifically created to beg the question: “We already know that God made everything. . . so how can we word that belief as scientific-seeming as we can?”

The problem here is that the latter isn’t a scientific position at all. It’s not a viable contender, on any level, with the Theory of Evolution, because it has not entered the arena in the way that scientific theories must: starting with an open mind and an open eye.
Click to expand...
Intelligent design existed well before Darwin.

Experiments are finding the real limits of evolution. And no, evolution cannot do everything.

Already, we see ID as being a better explanation.
 
benjamin1973 said:
-Chemical dating? Nah. . . maybe the halflife of isotopes was different 5,000 years ago.

-Fossils show patterns of similarities and differences? Nah. . . God was being efficient by giving whales finger bones

-Ligers, zorses, etc.? Nah. . . they’re all the same, they’ve just lost the ability to successfully reproduce with each other

At what point do you start feeling embarrassed to say all this stuff, and start looking for another angle?
Click to expand...
Since they are true no embarassment at all.

Half life. We ASSUME they were the same in the past.

Common design is a better explanation for similarities and convergent evolution.

Yes, isolated populations LOSE an ability they once had. Many go extinct because they lack genomic diversity.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Exactly the opposite. The evo claim they have transitional fossils is the truth. Because they all are
Click to expand...
Yet these random “transitionals” can be categorised in distiinct groups. Furthermore, several thousand years of intensive breeding of plants and animals suggests that creatures don’t “transition” anywhere - they remain as their original kinds.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
I see you’ve been around since Version 1 as well, and still learnt nothing. Evolution is a story - what’s wrong with that? It fits thousands of observations really well. That’s all it needs to do; that’s what science is.
Click to expand...
Still working that science story telling angle.

What we observe is better explained by ID. Evo experiments have failed. ID experiments are showing the implausibility of evolution.
 
Who knew primitive humans would be breeding animals, and plants. Grafting is mentioned in the Bible.
 
Glark said:
I can’t rely on the scientists involved to provide it, as I don’t trust them to be honest and objective.
Click to expand...
The Smithsonian admitted to destroying fossils that disagreed with migration across the Bering see, because it did not fit with their narrative.
 
benjamin1973 said:
Step 1: Ignore data from people who don’t agree with you

Step 2: Refuse to look for data of your own

Step 3: Shout “La la la la” as loud as you can when anyone tries to explain it to you.

Step 4: Quotemine (and misrepresent the quote you’ve mined) to justify your position

Sounds legit.
Click to expand...
You just described hugh_fary and other here with regard to peer reviewed published papers on ID. I am sure you noticed that that is the first move of the evo protect scheme. Search the source data and then disparage the site…

But, in the majority of my references I have quoted over the years come right from mainstream journals and yet they are ignored.
 
benjamin1973 said:
And, so far as I can tell, nobody who is supporting the Theory of Evolution in this thread has attempted to use it to disprove God or the Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
It has had that effect over the last few generations.

I argue against it because the evidence for macroevolution is just not there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top