Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Penicillin existed in nature.
Click to expand...
It is part of the homeostasis of the environment, where everything is kept in check.

Penicillin is a complex protein whose particular structure allows it to be picked up by the bacteria’s cell membrane mechanism, which attempts to use it to build the cell wall. The molecule does not have the same structure as the bacterial protein so the wall falls apart and the bacterium dies.

The mold, Penicillium notatum, produces the protein. The code for this is in its genome. The modern mythos would have it that the information just happened, probably one glitch at a time, the odds being impossible that it happened all at once, unless it was created/designed.

And on the other side of the balance, we have bacteria producing an enzyme that breaks penicillin down. Again the modern story has it that it just happened. Another pretty awesome glitch allows bacteria to counter the mold intrusion.

I think the inability to see the defects in Darwinism boils down an active lack of acceptance of God and His message. God speaks to us through everything we encounter in our daily lives and to many of us through science. A clear examination of the true facts can lead to a conversion.

I appreciate your posts and links.
 
Last edited:
vz71 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Evolution has an explanation. You do not.
Click to expand...
Random chance?

Is it possible to prove something is random?
Click to expand...
No. No it is not. Not ever. “Random” is what we call something that has no detectable pattern or correlation with anything else. It is the default assumption. The null hypothesis. It stands until replaced by an hypothesis that says “here is the pattern!” Probabillity and statistics has a whole theory built around randomness. Anything that passes all those tests is declared to be random. But it is never a proof.
 
Last edited:
On this point, I agree with you.

I personally do not believe you can prove something is truly random, because there can always be hidden variables (like other dimensions) about which we’re not aware. From a Christian perspective, I’d have to think that many seemingly random things only look random to us because we can’t see the underlying pattern. (e.g. God’s will)
 
Last edited:
More than that, for testing any RNG. RNGs have uses other than cryptography, such as in testing software.

rossum
 
If it is true that God created the universe, that He brought humanity into existence by creating the first man in the perfect garden of Eden and that this is a fallen world as a consequence of an original sin that established man rather than God at the Centre of his existence, if our lives here are a journey along the Way that is Jesus Christ, to eternal communion within the Trinity, then Darwinism is the opposite of truth. It is an illusion as destructive as any other worldly truth that sees wealth, power, pleasure and honour as worthy goals to obtain. At this point, within secular society, it is a delusion.
 
Define Darwinism. The Church has not condemned evolution as heresy provided we recognize God’s work and Adam and Eve as first parents.
 
Darwinism : “a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors —”

Adam and Eve are not recognized as first parents. According to science, they are preceded by hominids and hominins, which conflicts with Church teaching.
 
edwest211 said:
Darwinism : “a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors —”

Adam and Eve are not recognized as first parents. According to science, they are preceded by hominids and hominins, which conflicts with Church teaching.
Click to expand...
No, Church teaching is that Adam and Eve were the parents of all humanity. It says nothing about their not coming through another animal. You are placing your personal interpretation of the bible over official Church interpretation of the bible.
 
"36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

Humani Generis
 
Was this quote from HG supposed to refute my comment? It would be good if, when you quote a church document, you go on to say how that document supports some point you are trying to make.
 
edwest211 said:
Adam and Eve are not recognized as first parents. According to science, they are preceded by hominids and hominins, which conflicts with Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Amazing how the Church didn’t realize that and condemn the whole theory on the basis of that, you should write a letter to your bishop and the vatican.
 
mVitus said:
Define Darwinism.
Click to expand...
It is considered impolite to use the imperative form to ask a question. It comes across as bossy and condescenfing. Additionally, the asking of something that is pretty universally known, at least among people who frequent this thread, and is so easily searched on the internet, makes it sound disingenuous.

At any rate, an answer has been provided by another poster.

The issue as I see it is not what constitutes Darwinism, but rather what people mean when they use the term “evolution”.

When the Church says that evolution may not be heretical, they don’t mean Darwinism.
 
Last edited:
The Church does realize that.

Adam and Eve: Defense of Their Literal Existence as the Primal Human Couple, by Catholic Philosopher, Dr. Dennis Bonnette

Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? - Dr Dennis Bonnete

The Rational Credibility of a Literal Adam and Eve

They can be found here view-

Supporting Resources

Kreeft, Bonnette,Darwin,Catholic, Humani Generis,Saint Augustine,Michael Behe,Msgr Pope,Saint John Paul II,Intelligent Design, IDvolution, Adam and Eve, DNA, Stephen C Meyer,Epigenetic, Dr John Sanford
idvolution.blogspot.com idvolution.blogspot.com
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
It’s dead serious for the atheist, have you heard of Pascal’s Wager ?
Click to expand...
Yes. If I followed the wager I would be worshipping in a Hindu temple. Christianity only has one God; Hinduism has 100,000 gods. Much better odds in the Hindu temple: “Worship one, get 99,999 free!”

And you do attend a Mosque on Fridays and a Synagogue on Saturdays, just in case, don’t you?

rossum
Click to expand...
Actually Hindus believe that there are 330 million Gods. But from what I understand, there is one God for each planet and one higher God for each solar system - so given that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy, there are at least several billion Gods (in our galaxy alone). So we Hindus have underestimated the number by a wide margin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top