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.
benjamin1973 said:
Wait, would you mind re-linking the scientific paper, please? I’m willing to read it and comment on it.
Click to expand...
Spend some time on the reason resources presented here:

Supporting Resources

Kreeft, Bonnette,Darwin,Catholic, Humani Generis,Saint Augustine,Michael Behe,Msgr Pope,Saint John Paul II,Intelligent Design, IDvolution, Adam and Eve, DNA, Stephen C Meyer,Epigenetic, Dr John Sanford
idvolution.blogspot.com idvolution.blogspot.com
 
I wonder how many of your students left school with an incorrect understanding of “empirical evidence”.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
I wonder how many of your students left school with an incorrect understanding of “empirical evidence”.
Click to expand...
If they left with a proper understanding of empirical evidence they would easily spot the sham.
 
buffalo said:
The Smithsonian admitted to destroying fossils that disagreed with migration across the Bering see, because it did not fit with their narrative
Click to expand...
As Phillip Johnson pointed out, contrary evidence is interpreted as “no evidence” and is ignored. So “no evidence” fossils would be considered worthless and thus likely to end up in the rubbish bin.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
Techno2000:
Just answer the question… thanks. 😄
Click to expand...
But the question was so bonkers it’s difficult to know where to start. There aren’t any ‘candidates for evolution’. Any group of organisms whose environment is changing may have the genetic propensity for change. Or not. And none of them set off to become any particular different shape, they either fit the conditions of their environment or they don’t, in which case they won’t reproduce.

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…
Techno2000 said:
But, evolution would work just the same without there being a God… right ?
Click to expand...
No, not at all, any more than a cartoon strip draws itself.
Click to expand...
Ok, so you found a way to make evolution more plausible.
 
Techno2000 said:
I’m kinda fond of the word… gobbledygook.
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s got a nice ring to it. The thought it was an Australian word, but evidently not. Anyhow, both words can be applied to evolution stories that have no basis in fact - of which there is an never-ending supply.
 
The issue with making this a science is that the purposes of God cannot be put to the test. We can test the patterns and learn the patterns, but we also have to accept that some things are beyond our probing.
 
PetraG said:
The issue with making this a science is that the purposes of God cannot be put to the test. We can test the patterns and learn the patterns, but we also have to accept that some things are beyond our probing.
Click to expand...
Of course. God will not lay down on a lab table for our investigation. But He certainly leaves evidence all over the place. Why wouldn’t we think we could find it in biology?
 
Last edited:
God/gods are not scientific concepts. That’s where the Church has the advantage of knowing two things the world prefers not to mix together. While recognizing the place of science and faith, the fact is the Church is not limited to only faith and morals. It has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences and a Vatican Observatory. Here is why some cling to their version of truth.

"Disagreement and error among men on moral and religious matters have always been a cause of profound sorrow to all good men, but above all to the true and loyal sons of the Church, especially today, when we see the principles of Christian culture being attacked on all sides.

"2. It is not surprising that such discord and error should always have existed outside the fold of Christ. For though, absolutely speaking, human reason by its own natural force and light can arrive at a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, Who by His providence watches over and governs the world, and also of the natural law, which the Creator has written in our hearts, still there are not a few obstacles to prevent reason from making efficient and fruitful use of its natural ability. The truths that have to do with God and the relations between God and men, completely surpass the sensible order and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation in order to be put into practice and to influence practical life. Now the human intellect, in gaining the knowledge of such truths is hampered both by the activity of the senses and the imagination, and by evil passions arising from original sin. Hence men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful.

"3. It is for this reason that divine revelation must be considered morally necessary so that those religious and moral truths which are not of their nature beyond the reach of reason in the present condition of the human race, may be known by all mean readily with a firm certainty and with freedom from all error.[1]

"4. Furthermore the human intelligence sometimes experiences difficulties in forming a judgment about the credibility of the Catholic faith, notwithstanding the many wonderful external signs God has given, which are sufficient to prove with certitude by the natural light of reason alone the divine origin of the Christian religion. For man can, whether from prejudice or passion or bad faith, refuse and resist not only the evidence of the external proofs that are available, but also the impulses of actual grace.
 
"5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

"6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.

"7. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man’s life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas.

"8. In all this confusion of opinion it is some consolation to Us to see former adherents of rationalism today frequently desiring to return to the fountain of divinely communicated truth, and to acknowledge and profess the word of God as contained in Sacred Scripture as the foundation of religious teaching. But at the same time it is a matter of regret that not a few of these, the more firmly they accept the word of God, so much the more do they diminish the value of human reason, and the more they exalt the authority of God the Revealer, the more severely do they spurn the teaching office of the Church, which has been instituted by Christ, Our Lord, to preserve and interpret divine revelation. This attitude is not only plainly at variance with Holy Scripture, but is shown to be false by experience also. For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.
 
"9. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.

"10. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.

“11. Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an “eirenism” according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.”

Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII
 
I know, I know. Giraffes have lost the ability to have a short neck, or to mate with other deer. Poor giraffes!
 
It has had that effect precisely because people like you aren’t willing to accept fact, and most people will just ignore you rather than attempt to reason with you. When religion is obviously at odds with reality, eventually people will discard religion in favor of reality.

The sad thing is that it’s not at all necessary to take that position. There’s plenty of room in hard science for God.
 
Okay, now we have something worth talking about. Give me a couple days, and let’s get into it. I assume you’re familiar with the paper, and will be able to discuss it intelligently.
 
Techno2000 said:
That’s why this thread has gone on for so long, all I get is gibberish answers …as Glark says.
Click to expand...
Ooh, you naughty man! How dare you trail your nonsensical “red sheep with three horns” and then accuse me of gibberish. If you read my reply, you would see that I treated your attempt at mockery as good humour, and replied in good faith.

Yes, I know you only speak in jest, but look at the effect you’ve had on the poor baa-lambs. They’ve taken it seriously!
 
buffalo said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you can’t be bothered to present the paper’s arguments, then I can’t be bothered to refute them. Don’t be so dishonest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top