Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, man. Some of these links to outside “experts” are really dodgy. Some of them contain misrepresentations or misunderstandings of basic science so egregious that they could not possibly come from someone who succeeded in passing basics physics or biology courses in high school.
 
benjamin1973 said:
There’s nothing about evolution which contradicts, or really is much relevant to, all the stuff you are going on about right now.
Click to expand...
At least once in the past couple of threads evolution is explicitly defined as random changes through a filter of natural selection.

This effectively removes God from the act of creation.
 
It is so very interesting how some will just swallow what the evo community pushes.
 
It goes down like coca cola. that’s why. Inteligent design has this…funny taste to it.
 
Last edited:
Look at the relative ‘noise level.’ Evo gets the press, other observations are ignored or attempts are made to discredit legitimate concerns.
 
vz71 said:
This effectively removes God from the act of creation.
Click to expand...
How? Put God as the cause of the Big Bang, which produces a universe in which He wanted random changes to pass through a filter of natural selection. God being omniscient would know exactly and completely the result of the process in advance.

God can work at the level of the whole universe, while the small details proceed exactly as God knew they would from the beginning.

God does not have to tinker to keep things running. Things always run the way He knew they would.

rossum
 
I accept the concept of secondary causality. I accept the idea that physical things take on new forms and natures as they interact with each other. Now i see God as the creator of this process, but i accept the idea of a natural world that is free to act according to its nature, and since there is teleology in nature (goal direction) i see no honest reason to inject intelligent design concepts into a natural process in order to explain its effects. The idea that some biological system is too complex to be the effect of a natural process is making assumptions about the powers of physical reality. We really don’t know that biological systems are too complex to be the product of a natural process. That is an assumption and it is one that has not been proven, scientifically or otherwise.

But when it comes down to it, i am a theist. Natural Evolution is to me evidence of an intelligent first cause. DNA is incredible evidence of teleology in nature, or at least it provides one of the most obvious examples of it. I really don’t see it as evidence of metaphysical naturalism.

I can see why people are attracted to intelligent design theory but i see it as one of those theories that are ultimately missing the point and also underestimating how incredibly amazing physical reality really is.
 
Last edited:
Catholics understand that God holds everything in existence and can and does intervene often. He responds to prayer.
 
Do you have an objection to this?

God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.
 
benjamin1973 said:
Where I cannot agree with you is that the huge numbers of fossils, genetic markers, behavioral comparisons, and so on, which clearly point to evolution as a source of the physical formations that exist in the world either in our age or in ages past, are wrong because Genesis says X and Y.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure we can communicate. I don’t get where what you say has anything to do what I posted earlier.

So, let’s try again:

The standard theory of evolution holds that the driver for speciation is random genetic mutation. This isn’t something proveable but is a philosophical assumption asserting that what governs the functioning, including reproduction of living organisms is reduceable to the four basic interactions of nature, what we classify as matter. So glitches in the genome are supposed to be what causes new forms of life to appear. Their viability within their environment is said to ultimately result in the diversity that we see in the world. Natural selection acts as a scalpel cutting away the appearance of life forms that cannot reproduce themselves, from occurring in successive generations. Somehow that is said to explain the growing complexity we witness in nature.

What I am proposing is that life introduces new forms of being as real as are quarks, bosons, leptons, atoms and complex organic molecules. A bacterium exists as itself, as do plants and animals, and we ourselves. Although we can confuse ourselves and imagine otherwise, we remain a one, whole person, a physical being who perceives, thinks and feels about, and acts upon the world.

The organising principle of the matter that constitutes our bodies is relational. We identify with the self of the self-other relationship that defines our existence. All being is of the same structure, from its Source in Existence itself - the Triune Godhead. This is the true reality of everything.

Science has restricted itself to that structure of being that we understand to be physical. Darwinism unfortunately does this very poorly, throwing in randomness, as counter-intuitive as it is to all but the indoctrinated, when it runs out of explanations. And, it then leaps to speak of natural selection without offering any operational physical explanation for what it is, or alternatively, failing to describe what would constitute that order, beyond that of physics and chemistry, which forms the environment.

I’m not sure I can express it any better without adding many more pages.

This all will get sorted out in time and as the Big Bang Theory is consistent with Genesis, so will Paleoanthropology.
 
Last edited:
You haven’t explained how the “information” that all life evolved from microbes is useful in developing antibiotics.
Can you give me even one example of a use for this “information” is any form of applied science? I’ve been asking evolutionists this question for years and no one has ever given me an answer (so I can understand why you are avoiding the question).
 
Last edited:
stavros388 said:
This all seems to be predicated on the myth that evolution has merely been cobbled together in some worldwide conspiracy to trick the young into losing faith in God,
Click to expand...
At a demonic level, yes. But at a human level, it is the result of atheists’ rejection of divine creation - ie, life come into existence naturally somehow, and evolution is the best explanation.
 
This is lame. The question is not whether “evolution” is useful to science, but whether the theory/conclusion that all life on earth evolved from microbes is useful to science. When articles like this mention “fundamental principles of evolution”, they are referring to microevolution - such as genetic mutations/variations and natural selection, which no denies are demonstrable scientific facts.

The truth is, nothing in applied science depends on the theory that all life on earth evolved from microbes. It’s just a useless, worthless bedtime story; but people like you seem to have been brainwashed into thinking it’s vitally important to science.

Medical science doesn’t care if life evolved from microbes or not - it is only interested in facts, because facts can be useful.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Six day creation 6,000 years ago has been proven with certainty to be false. Anything over 7,000 years old proves it false. Nothing at all to do with biology. Cosmology, astronomy, physics, geology and archaeology to name but some all prove conclusively that a 6,000 year old universe is false.

You are another one placing obstacles.
Click to expand...
You seem to have forgotten my position - I believe the Scriptures allow for a creation previous to the one in which Adam was created. So the earth and life could have existed long before about 7000 years ago.
 
Aloysium said:
Uneducated desert dwellers, lol
Click to expand...
Apparently, they were smart enough to build the Great Pyramids, but God considered them too stupid to understand that life evolved from microbes - that why the Bible features a fairy tale about six days of creation and not the “truth” of billions of years of evolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top