Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
See our Lord being ridiculed above in the image with the dinosaur.

It demonstrates the attitude one has about the people on the other side of the argument.
It was just a joke, and ridiculing those on the creationist side, and how they supposedly see things, not Jesus. It is not how Catholics who believe in evolution see Jesus. God is the God of evolution and saying He couldn’t or didn’t use evolution limits God’s power and glory.
 
Last edited:
Yes, memes do have a point, but they do not support their point. As I said, they do not convince anyone. So it is just a waste of your time to post them.
You are right, they are a waste of time, so one last good one… and let’s get to the real debate.
 
They were not hauled into the lab.
Those 50,000 generations of bacteria are in a lab. Dr. Lenski’s lab. They are the Long Term E. coli Experiment.

You would do better to check sources before posting. That way you will not make so many errors.

rossum
 
Humans did not evolve from anything. We were created.
Your unsupported personal opinion is worth very little against the massive amount of scientific evidence for evolution in general and primate evolution in particular.

rossum
 
It would be nice if you actually tried to support a point like this rather than just blasting it out there and expecting it to do something.
Someone may actually want a reasoned discussion. That person may want to try somewhere else. There isn’t enough agreement, even among those on the same side of the debate to narrow a discussion down to the one or two common points of interest needed for a debate. I have no idea what you envision as evolution. So what you are going to get is a shotgun approach - this is what I think. If you want me to respond to some belief you have, state it and I will give you as much a thoughtful critique as I can muster. Alternatively, pick something I’ve said that sounds wrong or is not understandable, and I will try to clarify as best I can.

Edited to provide an example: In reference to the point you are addressing, our thoughts allow us to see the structure that underlies the appearance. The idea of atoms refers to some aspect of reality. We can understand through experimentation that they exist and how they behave. We further develop visual renditions of those properties. Such mental images help us connect to that level of what is, to understand and manipulate what we have labelled the physical world. It may however, prevent us from getting closer to their truth. Like the blind men and the elephant, different perspectives give us a different understanding. If we adhere too strongly to one point of view, we are closing ourselves off from others that may enlighten us further. We do need a coherent sense of who we are in the world and sometimes good news is too fragmenting to that sense, that we run from it. That would be the short of the long response to your question.
 
Last edited:
They were not hauled in the lab.

Is your claim that life in the past (now dead) can be hauled in the lab?

That is what the Pope was stating. 10,000 generations in the past is a one time event and we cannot do emprirical research on them.
 
Your unsupported pagan creation story is unsupported empirically.

We have Revelation, in other words, we were told what happened.
 
. . . and to reason, actually, when we contemplate the reality of our own individual existence.
 
Is your claim that life in the past (now dead) can be hauled in the lab?

That is what the Pope was stating. 10,000 generations in the past is a one time event and we cannot do emprirical research on them.
He is referring to the bacteria that became another species, the Pope however was indeed talking about previous generations over a long period of time. This experiment Rossum is referring to was over 30 years or so, and since the generations of bacteria are relatively short, there were about 50,000 generations at the time of the study.
 
Macroevolution is inconsistent with our observations and Revelation as well.
Actually no, like Rossum said we observed macroevolution in a laboratory.

How is is inconsistent with revelation? Did God reveal that Galapagos species all were made as they are with no evolution?
 
So you think he needed to take full size dinos?
The idea about the light joke is that creationists believe dinos and humans were altogether until the flood, and so the extinction of dinosaurs happened during the Moses flood event.

Jesus would be effectively saying to those dinos, no more room on the arc.

It’s silly but has a point.
 
. . . and to reason, actually, when we contemplate the reality of our own individual existence.
That said, we do have spleens, livers, brains, hearts, bones and muscles like animals. Like them as well, we have perceptions, feelings and automatic reactions. We are hardwired to live within a limited earthly environment. We take a microcosm with us when we go underwater or out in space. Whether we took it with us when a flood covered the earth, will be left for another discussion. The truth of who we are lies in our being a spiritual soul. The matter that constitues our body is incorporated from the time of conception from matter that is other, becoming self within the relationship that is our existence. That being does not come from any pre-existing organism but is created by God Himself, from Adam onward in time.
 
Last edited:
creationists believe dinos and humans were altogether until the flood
I was thinking about these sorts of views when I commented:
There isn’t enough agreement, even among those on the same side of the debate to narrow a discussion down to the one or two common points of interest needed for a debate.
I would label myself as a creationist, but I don’t think that view is likely.

On the other hand, because it speaks to mankind’s relationship with God, it would hold much more truth than Darwinism which rests on on materialism and necessity.
 
Last edited:
How many marbled crawfish are needed to where you never have to buy crawfish again? If they just clone themselves, then I wonder if most of the subsequent generations will tend to be the same size and taste as the others. Some plump ones sound good…they’re still edible, right?
 
I am watching with interest the latest dino soft tissue findings and carbon dating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top