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.
I am not talking about similar body plans for similar habitats, like the similarity between swallows and bats which feed by catching flying insects. Birds and dinosaurs are similar in a more fundamental way, their respiratory system, which is so radically different from that of amphibians, reptiles, and mammals that it requires specific skeletal structures like air passages in certain vertebrae. Birds and dinosaurs have it. Just a coincidence, right?
 
Last edited:
According to anti-evolution thinking, God gave us eyes not to observe nature, but to read the Bible.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
Here’s the process I follow in my thinking.
  • God made the Universe.
  • We have access ONLY to the Universe, i.e. through the senses.
  • The only way in which we can study God is to study the Universe.
Sure, we can talk about Divine Revelation. But until God submits to being tested in a laboratory, we are stuck with science as the best way for us to gain knowledge in an organized manner.
Click to expand...
Assuming that God is not deceptive, then we can further say that what we learn from the universe is on a level with knowledge from revelation. Both are from the same trustworthy source.

Or course, that does not prevent human error getting in the way of the correct interpretation of both. Though the fact that there are far more Christian denominations than scientific ‘denominations’ and the the disagreements within Christianity are more fundamental than the disagreements between scientists, indicate that currently human science is more reliable than human interpretations of revelation.

rossum
 
So you see a dinosaur with feathers, and birds having very similar biological structures as dinosaurs, and you are highly dubious that they are strongly related genetically?

What does the Bible have to say about the relationship between dinosaurs and birds? What does ID have to say about it?
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
Rejecting Darwinian evolution should be a trivial matter, as it’s 100% useless. Biology doesn’t need it and nor does any other field of science. Rejecting it should present no more of an obstacle to faith that rejecting belief in Santa Claus.
Click to expand...
Truth does not depend on utility.

Belief in Santa Claus is very like belief in Creationism, as it depends so much on an argumentum ad auctoritatem. By their fifth birthday or so (Santa Claus) or their tenth birthday or so (Creationism), nearly all children find that, because of the conflict between what they observe and what they are told, the argumentum ad auctoritatem is to be rejected. For a moment, as this happens, there is a risk that all authority is rejected, but good parents and educators are able to explain that their apparent dishonesty was not malicious, and so maintain their respect. If either Santa Claus or Creationism is obstinately adhered to by ‘authorities’ then they lose credibility not only in these specific instances, but generally. This is a direct cause of the rejection of formal religion, and the growth of atheism.
 
rossum said:
Assuming that God is not deceptive, then we can further say that what we learn from the universe is on a level with knowledge from revelation. Both are from the same trustworthy source.

Or course, that does not prevent human error getting in the way of the correct interpretation of both. Though the fact that there are far more Christian denominations than scientific ‘denominations’ and the the disagreements within Christianity are more fundamental than the disagreements between scientists, indicate that currently human science is more reliable than human interpretations of revelation.

rossum
Click to expand...
I almost gave you a thumbs up, until your claim human science is more reliable than human interpretations of Scripture.

The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth. The three legged stool of scripture, tradition and magisterium keep it from toppling and insure the faithful transmission of Revelation
 
RandomAlias said:
I am not talking about similar body plans for similar habitats, like the similarity between swallows and bats which feed by catching flying insects. Birds and dinosaurs are similar in a more fundamental way, their respiratory system, which is so radically different from that of amphibians, reptiles, and mammals that it requires specific skeletal structures like air passages in certain vertebrae. Birds and dinosaurs have it. Just a coincidence, right?
Click to expand...
Common design is not a coincidence.
 
benjamin1973 said:
So you see a dinosaur with feathers, and birds having very similar biological structures as dinosaurs, and you are highly dubious that they are strongly related genetically?

What does the Bible have to say about the relationship between dinosaurs and birds? What does ID have to say about it?
Click to expand...
Common design.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Truth does not depend on utility.

Belief in Santa Claus is very like belief in Creationism, as it depends so much on an argumentum ad auctoritatem. By their fifth birthday or so (Santa Claus) or their tenth birthday or so (Creationism), nearly all children find that, because of the conflict between what they observe and what they are told, the argumentum ad auctoritatem is to be rejected. For a moment, as this happens, there is a risk that all authority is rejected, but good parents and educators are able to explain that their apparent dishonesty was not malicious, and so maintain their respect. If either Santa Claus or Creationism is obstinately adhered to by ‘authorities’ then they lose credibility not only in these specific instances, but generally. This is a direct cause of the rejection of formal religion, and the growth of atheism.
Click to expand...
I believe is Santa Claus, the spirit of St Nicholas lives today and is enjoyed by so many, He has millions of helpers, too.

Now tooth farey 😀 and leprechauns are not real and parents should be real careful here.
 
Last edited:
In what sense do you mean design? Intelligent design? Or something else like structure-function relationship, or fitness for survival in a given habitat? Why would dinosaurs and birds have such similar respiratory systems, right down to chance details like skeletal attachment points?
 
Last edited:
The basic designed components are available. Most designers do not recreate the wheel but use readily available components. Many will use the common component for its efficiency even though other features may be discarded.

Common design is a better explanation that convergent evolution.
 
buffalo said:
Most designers do not recreate the wheel
Click to expand...
But this designer did create the wheel many times over. That’s why cephalopods and vertebrates have eyes that look similar, and function roughly similarly, but are structurally very dissimilar.

The bird and dinosaur respiratory system is vastly more efficient than ours. Why did the designer choose to equip man with lungs of the obsolete, inefficient design?
 
Last edited:
You know , guys, I have quit this thread many times, and always come back. I’m addicted.

But I started a therapy group for myself and any others suffering from the problem of trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Maybe I’ll see some of you over there.
40.png
Said it once. Said it twice. Might as well say it again Casual Discussion
It has come to my attention that many CAF members want to post the same thing over and over again in the same thread, so I thought, “Why not create a thread for that express purpose?” Here you are free to repeat yourself any number of times. Vary the wording a little bit; I think the system may complain if you post the exact same message.
Click to expand...
 
RandomAlias said:
But this designer did create the wheel many times over. That’s why cephalopods and vertebrates have eyes that look similar, and function roughly similarly, but are structurally very dissimilar.

The bird and dinosaur respiratory system is vastly more efficient than ours. Why did the designer choose to equip man with lungs of the obsolete, inefficient design?
Click to expand...
The bad design argument still admits design. One cannot know the purpose of a specific design unless they speak with the designer and understand his full intent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top