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:
Erm… You need to include the Queen of England, the Freemasons and Area 42 if you are going to make a real conspiracy theory. For bonus points you can claim that the Queen is really an alien reptile ten feet tall.

Oh yes, for the Glark version, you can include the Pope for free.
Click to expand...
I can include the Pope and the Freemasons, but the Queen of England and Area 42 would prove problematic.
 
Under a thin veneer stamped with the word evolution is a layer below, with a word written in stone: atheism. That’s all it’s good for. So, aside from interesting facts about living things that anyone could find evidence for, evolution is not credible as science. It is only a part of atheism and supports an anti-religion worldview.
 
First of all, everyone here is an atheist. You, for example, do not believe in Thor or Vishnu-- you are atheist about those particular ideas of gods.

Second, there are plenty of atheists who do not believe in evolution, and there are plenty of religious people who do. The problem isn’t with theists vs evolution-- it’s a conflict between a literal view of Biblical stories and a branch of science which contradicts them.

In essence, if evolution = atheism, then you are accusing all non-Christians, and all Christians or Catholics who accept evolution, of being atheist. You seem, in fact, to be accusing the Catholic church itself of either being atheist or endorsing atheism.

Good luck with that.
 
Provisional science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. Revelation, true for all ages and not provisional trumps science where they intersect.
 
buffalo said:
Provisional science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. Revelation, true for all ages and not provisional trumps science where they intersect.
Click to expand...
So you think that birds (day 5) appeared before land animals (day 6).

If you expect me to believe something as ludicrously bad as that then you will need a very large pile of evidence.

To quote Thomas Aquinas:
“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”
Click to expand...
You seem to be in the business of placing obstacles.

rossum
 
Appeared? They were created and I have no problem with the order set forth in Genesis 1.

I put my trust in Revelation before what scientists put forth that changes all the time. (has not been proved with certainty, it is speculation)

19 Evening came and morning came: the fourth day.

20 God said, ‘Let the waters be alive with a swarm of living creatures, and let birds wing their way above the earth across the vault of heaven.’ And so it was.

21 God created great sea-monsters and all the creatures that glide and teem in the waters in their own species, and winged birds in their own species. God saw that it was good.

22 God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the waters of the seas; and let the birds multiply on land.’

23 Evening came and morning came: the fifth day.

24 God said, ‘Let the earth produce every kind of living creature in its own species: cattle, creeping things and wild animals of all kinds.’ And so it was.

25 God made wild animals in their own species, and cattle in theirs, and every creature that crawls along the earth in its own species. God saw that it was good.
 
Last edited:
So you prefer one of many different interpretations of the text to the evidence of the actual handiwork of God.

Do not be surprised if scientists laugh you out of court. We have fossils of land animals, like Tiktaalik, dated millions of years before the first birds.

The Catholic Church learned the lesson of the Galileo incident. It is very evidenct that you have not.

rossum
 
vz71 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
In a book you probably won’t read.
Click to expand...
After all, it is not possible to read something and not come to the same conclusion.
Click to expand...
Of course you can never know if you would come to a different conclusion if you don’t read the book.
 
Techno2000 said:
I Don’t understand how this works.Lets take the second creature for a example, I will call him w2-r. If it takes about 15 million years for the whale to evolve.Then it would mean w2-r should have been around for at least a couple thousand years.

During this time thousands more w2-r are being reproduced. At some point in time a mutation causes w2-r to upgrade and become w2-r1.0 …BUT …w2-r are still out there reproducing offspring and surviving why should they die out ?
Click to expand...
Natural selection as the theory goes ‘selects’ certain species who are more favorable to survive a change in the environment. You are right in that if the environment never changed then there would not necessarily be any reason for the environment to favor one breed of species over another. From a narrower perspective a given species has whats known as a gene pool which is the sum of all genetic variations within a given species. If the environment changes that new environment may favor a different genetic variation of the current species. If the non favored variants die off at a rate faster than they can reproduce then they go extinct.

In order for evolution to work though there has to be a mechanism to generate genetic variation. Who is to say that life evolving from simpler species to more complex species is even possible without pre planning, especially with the law of entopy at work. You have to either believe we are extremely lucky that things turned out how they did or you have to believe in miracles.
 
fisherman_carl said:
In order for evolution to work though there has to be a mechanism to generate genetic variation.
Click to expand...
There is: random mutation. That introduces variation into the collective genome of a population. Natural selection preserves the more successful variants.

Random mutation introduces variants, good, bad and neutral. Natural selection spreads the good variants, weeds out the bad variants and ignores the neutral variants.

rossum
 
Since we are an integral part if not the final cause of creation, we are not here because the environment favoured us; there can be any doubt that we are not expressions of a simpler species, and “design” is a necessity.
 
rossum said:
There is: random mutation. That introduces variation into the collective genome of a population. Natural selection preserves the more successful variants.

Random mutation introduces variants, good, bad and neutral. Natural selection spreads the good variants, weeds out the bad variants and ignores the neutral variants.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is why I said you have to believe that we were either extremely lucky that things went from less complexity to more complexity in our favor given the law of entropy, or you have to believe in miracles, ie design.
 
Aloysium said:
Since we are an integral part if not the final cause of creation, we are not here because the environment favoured us; there can be any doubt that we are not expressions of a simpler species, and “design” is a necessity.
Click to expand...
Yeah… evolution screwed up with us…we are the only species that has to wear clothes to survive in a cold environment.
 
Lucky? Yes we are. Every single one of our billions of generations of ancestors, right back to that first just-about-living primitive proto-cell succeeded in reproducing. Billions more failed to reproduce, and they have no living descendants. In all those billions of generations we are the descendants of the one who succeeded in reproducing, and only of them. All the vastly greater number who did not succeed have not contributed to any modern genome.

We are the descendants of a very long line of successes with not one failure among them. Not one failure. Natural selection is a very strict filter, one strike and you’re out.

On a rough calculation there are about 2.7 trillion generations between us and that very first primitive living cell. That is 2.7 trillion winners and not one loser.

rossum
 
Aloysium said:
Since we are an integral part if not the final cause of creation, we are not here because the environment favoured us; there can be any doubt that we are not expressions of a simpler species, and “design” is a necessity.
Click to expand...
If we are the final end of creation then the environment would indeed need to favour us for us to exist in the first place. Just like the environment in our mother’s womb would need to favor us in order to develop properly. The environment itself could be seen as an extension to that ‘womb’ in which it is needed to be right in order for life to exist at all, never mind complex life. But the environment itself would be a secondary cause, whereas the formal cause is God.

Man, however, is a bit of an aberration of his environment. And therefore can not be completely from it.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
We are the descendants of a very long line of successes with not one failure among them. Not one failure. Natural selection is a very strict filter, one strike and you’re out.
Click to expand...
Or you could say that was the natural end of natural selection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top