Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
anon65111186 said:
Were the animals perfect to? Or imperfect? After all, they fell as well didn’t they?
Click to expand...
As I understand it, Genesis 1 states that all animals were created to be vegetarians. Perhaps the Fall turned some creatures into murderous carnivores (although it’s hard to imagine why a vegetarian lion would need huge fangs and claws).
 
Aloysium said:
The garden was in perfect balance. Animals, plants and lesser forms of life are meant to die. It’s the circle of life, hakuna matata; life surrendering itself to life that it may flower in all its diversity.
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine God describing a pack of dogs tearing a lamb apart as “very good”.
 
Aloysium said:
It is unreasonable to think that this is all chance.
Click to expand...
“unreasonable” - certainly; but that is to put it mildly. I think “absurd” and “completely irrational” are also appropriate.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
This is not known or knowable. You choose to believe so, but you do not have sufficient evidence to merit your belief.
Click to expand...
To claim that the complex systems evident in the universe and life “created” themselves is unscientific.
 
What % of the body’s materials are not indirectly taken from Earth’s minerals?

We are, under ANY view, Earth animated by the energy of the sun and its interactions with air and organic molecules, and made fluid enough to move around with water.

Even abiogenesis matches the story of Adam and Eve pretty well-- except that instead of it literally starting with Adam and Eve created ex nihilo, it starts with organic molecules suspended in water warmed by the energy of the sun (that being the “breath”), and a billion years-long evolutionary process arriving at humanity, possibly a single breeding pair, as our ancestors.
 
Last edited:
You’re right. It is unscientific. Scientists, so far as I know, do not claim to know how the Universe ultimately arose, or why it did so. They look at what they can, and draw inferences-- for example, given the laws of gravity, of momentum, and so on, they can infer that the Universe may have started as a singularity. Why there was such a singularity, rather than a lack of one, is beyond the scope of observation, and therefore science.

But it’s pretty obvious that given certain physical rules, and given enough working parts, complex systems must arise-- it’s inevitable.
 
I don’t think most scientists worth their salt hold the positions you claim they hold.
 
benjamin1973 said:
I don’t think most scientists worth their salt hold the positions you claim they hold.
Click to expand...
The spirit of atheism that rules the scientific community says materialism is all their is to reality - so much for scientists being “intelligent”!
 
The programming is in the system which allows for abiogenesis or evolution, not in those facts themselves.
 
benjamin1973 said:
The truth that your Holy book is 100% right, while those of maybe 2 dozen other religious full of their respective faithful members and wise leaders, are wrong?
Click to expand...
Exactly. There can be only one truth. Although other religions can contain some truth.
 
buffalo said:
“Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it.”
Click to expand...
What? The theory of evolution may contain assumptions!!! How dare you!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top