Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Glark said:
Do you think a pile of bricks can evolve to defend themselves?
Click to expand...
Bricks are not imperfect reproducers under a resource constraint. Evolution happens to imperfect reproducers under resource constraint. So, no, bricks cannot evolve.

rossum
 
Techno2000 said:
Please explain how it goes from inorganic to organic ?
Click to expand...
Put simply, organic molecules contain carbon [C]; non-organic molecules do not. Methane (CH4) is organic while Silica (SiO2) is inorganic.

rossum
 
Last edited:
To adequately respond to your post would require very many pages.
Genesis 1:29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
Click to expand...
As we have been informed by faith and the Church, scripture is literal. Its words are rich in meaning, generating great joy in their interpretation. The above quote from Genesis and especially yours from Isaiah, reveal how the world was initially created reflecting God’s gentleness.

The anger we face when we sin is the reality of sin itself, its destructiveness towards others and more so ourselves.

The words spoken in Genesis, it seems reasonable to believe, given their depth and the truth they reveal, were spoken by God to Adam and passed on by those who remained faithful as part of a growing dialogue between the Word of God and His people.

They do not contain every detail of creation. The fall of Lucifer is described later in scripture.
Rev 13:8 - All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast - all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.
Click to expand...
1 Peter 1:18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
Click to expand...
The veil of sin and the spiritual suffering that it brings is pushed aside, and we see at the very foundations of existence, here and now as well as in time, the gentleness of God and the extent of His love for us in Jesus Christ.

I can’t recall where I got the idea; I’m too busy and too lazy to look it up. Although it’s not stated outright in scripture, consider the possibility that before our fall and related to that of the angels, nature fell. Angels do God’s bidding from what I understand. Among those who followed Lucifer would be those who assisted in the formation of animals. And, that is how the serpent got into the Garden, which God permitted because it led to the greatest demonstration of God’s love for us.

As God gave us animal skins to protect us in this fallen world for which we were not made, nature’s balance was reestablished as life now gives itself to life.

Remember too that we eat the body and the blood of our Lord in the Eucharist.

There will be a greater peace and harmony at the end of creation’s journey through us in Jesus Christ, back to God.

That’s the short of it.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
So in the right environment, you expect that more and more complex compounds will develop
Click to expand...
I can only blame myself for initiating the same old pointless discussion by uttering the word - entropy.

Energy is lost when elements combine, as occurs in the case of oxygen meeting hydrogen to produce water. There has to be an external source that brings things together in a closed system. The sun fuels life on earth but that complexity (My apologies to those who consider the concept fuzzy - I can’t think of how else to phrase it simply.) does not spontaneously happen. A closed system has to exist, and that system would be the “soul” of the organism, the organizing principle that is of a different order than that of the simpler electrochemical forces that are the cement that binds the bricks (atoms) that constitute a life form.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
When one stands at the side of a pond, the observer determines if the light reflects off the surface or the bottom.
Click to expand...
The night sky is actually brilliant and filled with light, but it is travelling in every which way. We only see a small flicker of a distant star, but take one step in any direction, and there it is too. Consider the cone of light that hits just the earth from just one little sparkle, and they are everywhere.

We, by virtue of our spiritual soul, are the frames of reference described in physics. Although finite in the capacity, we are causal agents who can change the world, and ourselves through our will. God grant us all the knowledge and wisdom to discern what is good, and have mercy on us when we fail.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but that belief makes no sense to me. Those are the necessary “bricks” that form the structure of the organism. Something else must be at work to bring matter together as a living being. I would think with all that we know not only about how science has progressed, but how vast our lack of knowledge extends, that it would be easier for some people to imagine there is much more at play in the universe than what we understand at the moment. Ideology always seems to trump reason.
 
Last edited:
Of course there’s much more at play than we understand at the moment. But if you want to make specific claims about what that is, then you have to have good reasons, or hopefully evidence, to support those claims.

The God idea at its most essential is pretty sensible: stuff exists, so where did it come from? Something made it. But it seems to be organized by principles which random chance would make very unlikely? Okay. . . someONE made it.

These are fair enough ideas. But if you want to demonstrate that life forms were designed intelligently, then there are some problems with that. First of all, life is a festival of corruption, of failure-- it’s largely a symphony of destruction and death. Even a significant proportion of people are born with corrupted or bad designs. What’s intelligent about the design of Siamese twins, or people with Downs Syndrome, severe autism, congenital heart conditions, and so on? Did God deliberately design people who have body parts of their fetally-consumed twins?

That seems unlikely to me. It seems more likely that God would have designed the underlying mechanism for evolution, and that all the myriad failures are just that mechanism working itself out.
 
The prototypical design was excellent. God called it “good”.

Humans are devolving.
 
Because Adam and Eve were perfect?

Oh wait. . . the first people God ever made chose to sin, and God knew that they would do so because he’s time omniscient. So. . . were they perfectly imperfect? What’s the story, here.
 
Redemption from the original sin which he must have known Adam and Eve would commit?

My friends and I used to play a game by subway tracks-- push your friend as the subway’s coming, then pull him back, and say “I saved you!”

I didn’t know I was unconsciously mimicking God when we were doing that. 😃
 
Last edited:
I was going to respond to your earlier post, but given your attitude, there seems to be no point.
You will know what we are talking about. I would think it better sooner than later, but it’s your choice.
 
Interesting post. It reminds of a story I heard from a well-known Evangelical preacher called Chuck Missler: A certain prominent scientist (unfortunately, I forget his name), as a result of his study of quantum physics, came to the conclusion that God exists. Being rather devoted to atheism (how unusual for a scientist to be an atheist!), this scientist couldn’t live with such awful knowledge and committed suicide.

So, knowing that such hatred of God exists, it should come as no surprise that many atheist scientists devote a great deal of their energy to promoting pseudo-scientific fables that are designed to deny God’s existence. It’s kinda embarrassing and depressing to know that the Church has officially fallen for their anti-creation, anti-God fairy tales and propaganda.
 
benjamin1973 said:
But it’s pretty obvious that given certain physical rules, and given enough working parts, complex systems must arise-- it’s inevitable
Click to expand...
Sure … just as inevitable as chimps building a nuclear reactor one day.
 
Last edited:
Well, if you believe in God, then it WAS inevitable. Because here we are, and we have built nuclear reactors.
 
The reason many scientists are atheist is because they base their life’s work on a philosophy which places observation and experimentation as the best ways to learn about things. You cannot directly observe God or God’s will, nor can you control experimental conditions such that God can be studied.

I think your comments about a scientist being “devoted to atheism” represent your own views. There are plenty of Christian scientists, and even among atheists, there’s much less passion against religion than you pretend there is. For the most part, atheists are just people who aren’t religious, and don’t like to be bothered with a cultural tradition they consider little more relevant than stories about the Tooth Fairy.
 
Last edited:
Once you realize that it is impossible for life to arise naturally from inanimate matter, you realize the need for a Creator to explain how life started. Having cleared that hurdle, you can then advance from agnostic to theist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top