Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s use for the foundation of atheism is obvious. It has no scientific use.
 
Exactly. Why else would the atheist-ridden scientific community be totally obsessed with promoting a totally useless theory?
 
Last edited:
Genetics will eventually prove macroevolution is impossible. I advise you to prepare yourself for the bad news - will you cope without your “God of evolution”?
 
Last edited:
The evolution of a new species isn’t evidence that supports microbe-man evolution? Are you sure?
 
benjamin1973 said:
Evolution isn’t a social movement, a political position, or an evolution. It’s just a scientific theory which is vastly superior to any other in explaining why animals are the way they are, now and throughout the geologic record.
Click to expand...
You forgot to mention it’s completely irrelevant to anything in the real world.
 
So why did Gould describe the lack of transitions as “the trade secret of paleontology”?
 
How else would you describe creationism? One day there are no Armadillos and then there are Armadillos by the direct action of the Creator.

rossum
 
benjamin1973 said:
I would guess that those Professors of Biology™ probably aren’t evolutionary biologists.
Click to expand...
Right, they’re biologists who deal with real biology - who became very highly qualified without accepting microbe-man evolution. In other words, science doesn’t need evolutionary biologists; they’re irrelevant.
 
. . . whereas the Adam and Eve story helps in the search for a cure for cancer, and the rest of Genesis helps us fight deadly bacteria?
 
You obviously don’t have to be an evolutionary biologist to be a biologist. That would be a category error.

That’s like saying we don’t need rocket science for there to be scientists. However, if I want to know how things fly to space, I will consult a rocket scientist, and if I want to know why certain species have come to exist as they do, I’ll ask an evolutionary biologist.

You seem not to understand very basic things-- like, just because someone is called a “biologist” doesn’t mean their field of study is the origin of life. And, if it’s not, they are no more qualified to talk about the origin of species than you and I are.

Anyway, since you and I both know that like 99% of biologists believe in evolution, you produce those who don’t, and explain how they DO think species came to be. Then we can see if those ideas meet the basic requirements of evidence and peer review, which are required if someone wants to be said to be doing science.

They won’t.
 
Last edited:
The concept of evolution does not help with either. In both cases, scientists resort to trial and error.
 
“timothyvail said:
Saint John Paul II

“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution”
Click to expand...
For the record, this is not a quote from St John Paul II, but from the document ‘Communion and Stewardship’ (2004; #63) from the International Theological Commission. The International Theological Commission has no magisterial authority and it was obviously written by proponents of cosmic evolution. The quote is nothing more than the opinion of certain theologians who appear to be advocates of cosmic and biological/darwinian evolutionism.
“the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens”
Click to expand...
This quote is also from the same document ‘Communion and Stewardship’ (#63).
Click to expand...
 
Deleted. Too angry to type right. This glitching doesn’t help either.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
I strongly object to your posting this.
Ed
Click to expand...
I can understand objecting to the Nazi propaganda. Objecting to the posting of a blatant example of what we do to one another, I don’t really comprehend.

I assume you are aware that there have been 60,000,000 abortions in the USA since Roe and Wade, justified by a belief system that turns from the reality that God is Father to each and every living soul.

Object all you want, bud!

You might want to discover why you did not object to the idea that it is we who decide what is human, as implied in the assertion that whether someone with a trisomy is classified as human has to do with their capacity to produce offspring.

I merely described the reality of that belief/attitude when it is put into action.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
It would probably take over a hundred transitional stages to go down that small …where are they ?
Click to expand...
The answer I often get from those that support evolutionary theory is that they simply have not been found.

I never understood it, seems to me that the lack of evidence for a theory should tell us something about the theory, not the other way around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top