Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
Was that really so very difficult?
Click to expand...
Not difficult at all. What seems difficult is to get the point he is making, which has to do with there being no apparent selective pressure for the supposed random genetic malformation that would be a giraffe.
 
It’s pretty basic, and was actually the reason that Darwin first developed his ideas about the origin of species. Not all members of a species are in the same environment, which means they do not have the same environmental pressures. And that’s why members of a single species begin to diverge-- until eventually they are different enough that we see them as different species.

There are bears, for example, in various climates. The ones in the North are bigger, have white fur, and have more body fat. Those are polar bears. Do you ask “Why didn’t brown bears disappear when polar bears were evolving”?

No. Cuz we know why-- they aren’t in direct competition.

Obviously, those pre-giraffes which lived in more abundant climes with plenty of food wouldn’t be selected for longer and longer necks. Those which had to reach high leaves in order to survive and reproduce would be.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
According to the Catholic Church, which is my guide for how to interpret the Bible, Genesis is largely (but not completely) allegorical. Please see the Catechism for specifics on which parts of Genesis are literally and scientifically true.
Click to expand...
The CCC is heavily biased toward evolution and is consequently a poor, misleading and unbalanced guide on how to interpret Genesis. It gives the reader the impression that the only way to interpret the “six days” of creation is “symbolically”. And as far as I know, the Catechism fails to mention that the faithful are free to believe in a literal “six days” interpretation - an amazing omission, considering the fact that said literal interpretation was the standard interpretation for about 99% of the Church’s history.

The CCC also implies microbe-man evolution is a scientific fact and is “unerring (infallible) knowledge”. Patent nonsense.
 
So. . . not a Catholic, then? If you are, this seems like a pretty dangerous position.
 
That’s fine, and that’s why the Catholic church, I believe, is okay with evolution-- there’s plenty of room for God to carry out whatever plan He has without expecting Him to adhere to the allegorical tales of ancient desert-dwellers.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
Can you explain how the plankton eating Whale, caused all its previous evolutionary incarnations to die out ?
Click to expand...
It didn’t. Baleen whales, which mainly eat krill and similar, evolved from toothed whales, and toothed whales are still around.

rossum
Click to expand...
So, what happened to the transitional whales between the toothed and the Baleen ?
 
Glark said:
The CCC is heavily biased toward evolution and is consequently a poor, misleading and unbalanced guide on how to interpret Genesis. It gives the reader the impression that the only way to interpret the “six days” of creation is “symbolically”. And as far as I know, the Catechism fails to mention that the faithful are free to believe in a literal “six days” interpretation - an amazing omission, considering the fact that said literal interpretation was the standard interpretation for about 99% of the Church’s history.

The CCC also implies microbe-man evolution is a scientific fact and is “unerring (infallible) knowledge”. Patent nonsense.
Click to expand...
Your implication in your last sentence is debatable. But your dismissal of the official teaching of the Catholic Church in favor of your private interpretation of scripture is strictly protestant. Luther also thought that things that the Catholic Church taught were patent nonsense.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If I am naive so are the recent popes and the Catechism that have also agreed that Genesis does not preclude evolution. I am in good company.
Click to expand...
Right … Pope Francis doesn’t seem to think God is omnipotent and JP II seemed completely oblivious to the influence of atheism in origins science. Me thinks some Church leaders have fallen under the spell of Scientism.
 
In a gesture of peace, here, I do have a very serious question about evolution in the lab. What if they were to make organic matter in the lab “live,” i.e. function independently, seek food, etc. What if they could rush a few trillion generations and end up with organisms with a simple nervous system?

Would we then accept that life has really been created, or would we suspect that it lacked the capacity for qualia (the term for really experiencing the world, rather than just processing it as a biological machine)?
 
All part of God’s plan, though. . . right? So you’d better accept it.
 
Spot on, amigo. I remember copping a lecture on Gaia back when I was studying Environmental Science at uni. Apparently, this pagan concept had something to do with science, but I was too dumb to figure out how.
 
Less crowding, and hence less competition for food away from the original population. I am not sure of the precise dates, but something like 12 million years ago Africa was covered in jungle. Then the climate got drier, and savannah started to develop. That was a new opportunity in a new environment, and some animals adapted to that new environment. Giraffes moved to exploit the new environment, while Okapis stayed in the jungle. Similarly, some apes stayed in the jungle while others ventured out into the new savannah and got better at walking on two legs.

rossum
 
The Bible does not rely on “tales of ancient desert-dwellers,” it relies on the Holy Spirit. The Bible is God-breathed. The books of the Bible were collected under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Any attempt to blur the line between the Bible and science is just not valid. There are no peer-reviewed articles that analyze Genesis for its science or lack thereof.

So this will continue indefinitely. So be it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Your implication in your last sentence is debatable. But your dismissal of the official teaching of the Catholic Church in favor of your private interpretation of scripture is strictly protestant. Luther also thought that things that the Catholic Church taught were patent nonsense.
Click to expand...
Do you doubt that the CCC presents microbe-man evolution as a fact?

Microbe-man evolution is not an official Church teaching, regardless of what the erroneous CCC implies.
 
benjamin1973 said:
In a gesture of peace, here, I do have a very serious question about evolution in the lab. What if they were to make organic matter in the lab “live,” i.e. function independently, seek food, etc. What if they could rush a few trillion generations and end up with organisms with a simple nervous system?
Click to expand...
Have you been drinking? Sorry, this is not a serious question - it’s serious fantasy.
 
Last edited:
If you were a little more clever, you’d see that the thing you just quoted is a partial support for your position: that Science cannot ever supplant philosophical or religious positions due to limitations in observation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top