Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

[Glark]

He also covered His tracks by arranging the scientific evidence to make it look like it was evolution.

A atheist cult masquerading under a cloak of science told you that all the evidence points to evolution … and you believed them?

Science is based on what the evidence seems to support. If you don’t like those rules, don’t play that game.

True science has its rules. Evolution “science” has another set of rules. You need to understand the difference (hint: true science doesn’t reach conclusions predicated on a mountain of baseless assumptions).

 

[Glark]

You keep saying this, and I keep correcting you. I’ll try it again, and undoubtedly you will ignore me again.

You keep saying this, and I keep asking you. I’ll try it again: How is the theory that life evolved from microbes in any way useful?

If your goal is to draw interesting connections among animal species, either the multitude alive today or those throughout history, then evolution is infinitely more useful than Biblical accounts like that found in Genesis.

How is “draw(ing) interesting connections among animal species” (alive or dead) useful? You repeatedly make these sort of claims, but as yet you haven’t provided anything at all in the way of evidence. Science works like this - you make a scientific claim, then you support it with evidence.

 

[Glark]

Evolution is the ultimate expression of pagan science: Nature created us.

 

[Glark]

Darwinism usually refers strictly to biological evolution, but creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of life, and it has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin’s work.

It’s my understanding that Charles Darwin came up the (in)famous “Tree of Life”, which describes the theory of common ancestry. In which case, it’s entirely appropriate to think of Darwinism as microbe-man evolution.

 

[Glark]

Biologists can offer plenty of practical uses for “evolution”, but what they mean by “evolution” ALWAYS turns out to be MICROEVOLUTION - ie, demonstrable biological facts that no one disputes.

Or, as has been my experience on other forums, some biologists will try and con you with sophistry such as this little number: Certain similarities in the DNA of humans and other animals has contributed to the development of vaccines … The similarities in the DNA of humans and other animals is evidence that humans and these other animals share a common ancestor … Therefore common ancestry (ie, macroevolution) has been proven to be scientifically useful.

The obvious flaw in their logic may not even be evident to them - they just parrot this nonsense because that’s all they ever heard (read: been brainwashed with) and have never questioned it. When little ol’ me comes along and points out this erroneous thinking to these learned biologists, their response is always the same … dead silence.

The theory that life evolved from microbes is a complete irrelevance to applied science. How many companies involved in medical science, for example, do you think spend money on investigating if humans and apes share a common ancestor? My guess is ZERO - because it’s worthless “information” and useless talk.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Biologists can offer plenty of practical uses for “evolution”, but what they mean by “evolution” ALWAYS turns out to be MICROEVOLUTION - ie, demonstrable biological facts that no one disputes.

It is the same thing, differing only in scale.

 

[anon65111186]

it is the spirit which is real and makes everything tangible; and it is matter that is more of a mist in comparison.

If you look at the quantum level, maybe, but that is not what is at issue.

As a brick is unrestricted by a fog, walls are no obstacle to the spirit.

Been walking through any brick walls lately? Only glorified bodies do that, and under very miraculous circumstances.

(spirit-body) is that they do not truly exist

So to confirm, you deny that there is a distinction between the material body and spiritual one, that they are of the same substance?

In a way it can be said that all is mind.

Sounds like monism to me, and probably is.

No, we did not evolve.

If we didn’t evolve, what about those animals on Galapagos? What’s your explanation for that?

We had a beginning; we were created perfect.

So we can’t be created perfect and have evolved? Isn’t that a false dichotomy? Either we are created perfect or we evolved?

 

[anon65111186]

Evolution is the ultimate expression of pagan science: Nature created us.

Well, nature had a part in it, but evolution does not claim nature is a god, or a prime mover, or an intelligence, it describes nature as operating as it does in reality. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[anon65111186]

It’s my understanding that Charles Darwin came up the (in)famous “Tree of Life”, which describes the theory of common ancestry. In which case, it’s entirely appropriate to think of Darwinism as microbe-man evolution.

Well, okay but the origin of life is not about microbes, which are already alive, it is about how life arises from non-living matter.

Microbe-man sounds like a cartoon character, microbes evolved over long periods into lots of things, not just men. Such a theory is well supported by the fossil record, throughout the record things get more and more complex over time.

 

[anon65111186]

Charles Darwin came up the (in)famous “Tree of Life”, which describes the theory of common ancestry

Using computer models and statistical methods, biochemist Douglas Theobald calculated the odds that all species from the three main groups, or “domains,” of life evolved from a common ancestor—versus, say, descending from several different life-forms or arising in their present form, Adam and Eve style.

The domains are bacteria, bacteria-like microbes called Archaea, and eukaryotes, the group that includes plants and other multicellular species, such as humans.

The “best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis” has one species giving rise to bacteria and one giving rise to Archaea and eukaryotes, said Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts.

But, based on the new analysis, the odds of that are “just astronomically enormous,” he said. “The number’s so big, it’s kind of silly to say it”—1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros.

Theobald also tested the creationist idea that humans arose in their current form and have no evolutionary ancestors.

The statistical analysis showed that the independent origin of humans is “an absolutely horrible hypothesis,” Theobald said, adding that the probability that humans were created separately from everything else is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

 

[Glark]

Okay but I don’t see how something that didn’t have shape or form and was literally empty space could have contained a flood or animals or anything else.

Seems like you’ve missed my point, which I thought pretty straightforward. The empty void and darkness described in Genesis 1:2 could be the result of the destruction of the first creation. Having destroyed this first creation, God then sets about creating a second creation, the “six days” creation which culminated in Adam.

 

[Glark]

That’s possible, but it isn’t explicit and it certainly isn’t clear that omission of carnivores equals there shouldn’t be or wasn’t any.

To someone whose judgement isn’t handicapped by trying force evolution in the Scriptures, the meaning should be clear and unambiguous.

 

[anon65111186]

Seems like you’ve missed my point, which I thought pretty straightforward. The empty void and darkness described in Genesis 1:2 could be the result of the destruction of the first creation. Having destroyed this first creation, God then sets about creating a second creation, the “six days” creation which culminated in Adam.

So if there was an earth and it became void, and then earth was recreated, then wouldn’t that mean everything got erased?

1:1 In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth

Doesn’t seem to indicate there was anything before the void. Where does that come in?

 

[anon65111186]

To someone whose judgement isn’t handicapped by trying force evolution in the Scriptures, the meaning should be clear and unambiguous.

It is possible to read he gave them plants to eat as that’s all he gave them.

Your assumption is they should only eat what God gives them and nothing else. Or if God gives plants, it is impossible that they ate anything else, because God gave them plants and when God gives you something, you only eat that.

But common sense wise if I said one time that I gave my daughter a sandwich, it doesn’t mean she eats only sandwiches forever.

Just because something was given doesn’t mean that was the only thing eaten. If you can get the Fathers of the Church to support that or some Church document I’d be happy to look into it.

If not, just like you have said, it’s just your own opinion.

 

[Glark]

It is the same thing, differing only in scale.

Forget the word games - show me just one article that demonstrates a scientific use for common ancestry. I’ve been on the lookout for years and have never encountered one.
The fact of the matter is, someone like me - who completely rejects microbe-man evolution and common ancestry - could become a fully competent biologist whose scientific work wouldn’t be hindered in the slightest. That’s because applied science depends on facts, not worthless stories about what might have happened billions of years ago.

 

[Glark]

Well, okay but the origin of life is not about microbes, which are already alive, it is about how life arises from non-living matter.

Darwin didn’t offer an explanation for the origin of life. He concentrated on evolution.

 

[buffalo]

It is not scaleable and that is the problem with Darwinism.

 

[anon65111186]

Darwin didn’t offer an explanation for the origin of life. He concentrated on evolution.

Thank you truth speaker, so why did you post this?

ME: Darwinism usually refers strictly to biological evolution, but creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of life, and it has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin’s work.

GLARK: It’s my understanding that Charles Darwin came up the (in)famous “Tree of Life”, which describes the theory of common ancestry. In which case, it’s entirely appropriate to think of Darwinism as microbe-man evolution.

It sounds like you are trying to say it refers to the origin of life.

 

[Glark]

Microbe-man sounds like a cartoon character

Well said - it is a fantasy and it is comical.

Evolution (supposedly) started with the simplest creature - a microbe - and has (supposedly) led to the most complex creature - man. Hence the term, “microbe-man evolution”.

 

[Glark]

"Creationism is ‘an absolutely horrible hypothesis’’’. There are lots of gullible people who will translate this as: “The Bible is nonsense, so Christianity is nonsense.” How Satan must love evolution!