Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
The rarity of fossils that are transitional between groups is in a way a natural consequence of our defining the groups to match the existing fossil record. The groups are arbitrary divisions made up to contain all that there is. Treating them as something absolute after the fact is the mistake.
Click to expand...
The division between reptiles and birds is arbitrary? It seems rather well defined to me. Birds and reptiles have completely different respiratory systems, for one thing.
 
anon65111186 said:
Is there a good reason to think it is all about idolators, and that is the only reason they changed from one species to another? Because we can establish that what they are indeed referring to is a change in species, whether in response to sinners or not, they changed species.
Click to expand...
I think you’re reading it too literally. The passage simply means God caused unnatural things to occur in the natural world that resulted in distress/discomfort/danger to the intended victims. These phenomena were temporary, not permanent changes to nature. Think in terms of the curses visited on the Egyptians in Exodus. Read the whole chapter, and even preceding chapters - it’s obvious.
 
Wow, I had no idea pigs were mechanics, let alone that a pig invented the internal combustion engine! I’m learning a lot on this site!
 
Kei said:
Dinosaurs were not a known being until the 1800s. There’s no real reason to mention something so confusing and not able to be understood by the audience by describing such an unnecessary detail to the narrative.
Click to expand...
Which is precisely why the Bible should not be used as a science textbook. It was written for an Iron Age audience, with an Iron Age level of understanding. Darwin published in 1859, with a much greater level of understanding of biology.

rossum
 
Dawkins is, in fact, the kind of rabid anti-theist that you have been describing, and uses the methods you have described in achieving the goal you described.

My opinion is that he’s more interested in TV time than in doing science any more.
 
Glark said:
Wow, I had no idea pigs were mechanics, let alone that a pig invented the internal combustion engine! I’m learning a lot on this site!
Click to expand...
There are other theories on the subject. Confirming Francis Crick’s (co-discoverer of DNA’s double helical structure) hypothesis in Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature that life on earth arose from primitive spores rocketed to earth by an advanced civilization and the view that they remain involved, there is an artifact that commemorates the bringing of the internal combustion engine to earth by aliens:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
I’m not sure what you mean by your statement but our creation is not a chance event in the universe. Darwinism is quite clear about what random genetic mutation means. If God’s definition is different, since He is Truth itself, then Darwinism is not true.
Click to expand...
And what do you conclude from his clear statements on mutation? That there is no possibility for God to be behind it?
 
Glark said:
I think you’re reading it too literally. The passage simply means God caused unnatural things to occur in the natural world that resulted in distress/discomfort/danger to the intended victims. These phenomena were temporary, not permanent changes to nature. Think in terms of the curses visited on the Egyptians in Exodus. Read the whole chapter, and even preceding chapters - it’s obvious.
Click to expand...
We can certainly take it literally, but in the contextual chapters does the water creatures change back to land creatures and land creatures vice versa?
 
anon65111186 said:
40.png
Aloysium:
Darwinism is quite clear about what random genetic mutation means. If God’s definition is different, since He is Truth itself, then Darwinism is not true.
Click to expand...
And what do you conclude from his clear statements on mutation? That there is no possibility for God to be behind it?
Click to expand...
Then they are not random effects caused by physical forces. God is something you are adding to events that Darwinism believes would happen regardless of any intervention.

Regardless, Darwinism does not address the issue of life itself, that organisms exist as forms of being. The theory rests bon the four basic interactions of matter as being the true cause and reality of living entities, including ourselves.

Additionally, natural selection is based on ideas regarding the environment that are not material and remain undefined within the Theory.

The fact is that God created life, which has changed over billions of years on this planet existing within an even older universe.

Evolution provides an insufficient explanation of what is a living being and the idea that a person is a transformed ape sounds more and more ridiculous the more one thinks about it, while remaining aware of what it means to be human.
 
Last edited:
anon65111186 said:
We can certainly take it literally, but in the contextual chapters does the water creatures change back to land creatures and land creatures vice versa?
Click to expand...
So, what do you think of the bolded words contained in the full verse?
Aloysium said:
Wisdom 19:18 On a harp each string keeps its own pitch, but each sound can be combined with others to make different melodies. That is how it was in those days, when the very elements entered into new combinations. Look at what happened! 19 Land animals took to the water, and swimming creatures came up on the land. 20 Fire burned even in water, which could not put it out. 21 And yet the flames could not burn the flesh of the perishable creatures walking in them and did not melt that heavenly food that would ordinarily have melted like frost.
Click to expand...
 
Aloysium said:
Evolution provides an insufficient explanation of what is a living being and the idea that a person is a transformed ape sounds more and more ridiculous the more one thinks about it, while remaining aware of what it means to be human.
Click to expand...
Do you have a more adequate explanation for the phenomena evolution takes as its object? Could you explain better what happened to the species at galapagos? So far though not perfect, it’s the best we have.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
So, what do you think of the bolded words contained in the full verse?
Click to expand...
I can take it literally and see that it has nothing to do with species changing, it would be something for physics or some other theory to deal with, not evolution.
 
Last edited:
I am speaking to what it means when they say randomness.
Ernst Mayr says this, “When it is said that mutation or variation is random, the statement simply means that there is no correlation between the production of new genotypes and the adaptational needs of an organism in a given environment.”

I personally think that there is a correlation, but that is what is meant by randomness
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
40.png
anon65111186:
40.png
Aloysium:
Darwinism is quite clear about what random genetic mutation means. If God’s definition is different, since He is Truth itself, then Darwinism is not true.
Click to expand...
And what do you conclude from his clear statements on mutation? That there is no possibility for God to be behind it?
Click to expand...
Then they are not random effects caused by physical forces. God is something you are adding to events that Darwinism believes would happen regardless of any intervention.
Click to expand...
This is not the correct understanding of the term “random” when used in this regard. Random means without any detectable causal relationship with anything else that is observable. It says nothing about intention. Indeed, God could be controlling everything that we call random and our analysis would still be the same. It is random if there is no detectable causal relationship, or more precisely, and correlation.

Edit: I see that Kei beat me to it!
 
Last edited:
Let’s start with the simple stuff that has nothing to do with evolutionary theory and involves some solid science. What happens everywhere and was described by Darwin is adaptation. There are potentials in the genome that are expressed developmentally and as a reaction to the environment. There do occur genetic mutations as random chemical events. Where these result in speciation, as an article from Nature posted earlier reported, they do so by gene deletion. So, living things were created perfect but random changes have made them imperfect.

As to how how different beings are created, we could start at the creation of atoms, individually relating to one another.

A new creation, call it information, or perhaps an idea, maybe a substance or soul, encapsulates lesser forms into itself, creating at the next level a single cell organism utilizing previously formed atoms. These can move about with cilia, perceive in a rudimentary manner, things in their environment that are food vs danger, each one a whole being in itself.

At a higher more complex level we have plants and animals. The latter exhibit more sophisticated behaviours, especially compared to those of atoms, we call instinctive. They perceive, feel and act in accordance to the nature of their kind, of which each is an individual expression.

But let’s cut to the chase, you and I who are meeting here, each a manifestation of one mankind, both of us a unity, do bear a similarity to the creatures below us in the hierarchy of life, but possess an eternal nature.

Being is layered, each containing elements of those forms below it. Atoms do not become cells, which do not become plants or animals, which do not become us. Each is a different set of information, a different idea, a different substance, a different type of soul, incorporating the basic idea that is matter. As each type of existence follows the other ontologically, they came into existence temporally.

We did not come from apes, but are a new creation as different from them as they are from simple atoms. Again, Adam was created perfect and not with defects passed on from previous hominids. From there, with the ravages of time the human genome has separated and changed to the present picture.

Something like that. This isn’t the right format to adequately discuss the matter.
 
Last edited:
That would be that individual’s definition.
In other words things just happen, sort of pointless to use it then, isn’t it.
Appealing to the things-happen-because-they-do-of-the-gaps, I suppose.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Random means without any detectable causal relationship with anything else that is observable.
Click to expand...
There is always a cause and they can be multiple and/or not observable.

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting is that God controls the processes involved in gene mutation.

And it would make sense then that as we have damaged our relationship with Him, His creative/maintaining graces are diminished and we are prone to the degeneration inherent in matter, left to its own properties.

I think, given that scenario that the first man from whom all humanity derives, was made with a perfect genome under an eternal spirit, and did not emerge from the mating of two hominids having imperfect genes, as evolution would assert, with animal souls.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top