Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

[Glark]

It gives us insight into the origin of species.

Please provide an example of how this “insight” has proven useful to applied science. Can you name any drug or medical breakthrough that resulted from the “knowledge” that humans evolved from an ape? Good luck!

 

[IWantGod]

Please provide an example of how this “insight” has proven useful to applied science.

It’s utility value is irrelevant. Why is that important? Is that really the best you can do, attack its utility value?

 

[Glark]

That is grounded on the assumption that they are 1. atheist 2. pseudo-scientific 3. a cult. The first has no real bearing, the second is probably the most important, and the third is like the first. Do you have facts that support 1,2 or 3?

1. Most, if not all, evolutionary scientists are atheists.
2. The theory that life on earth evolved from microbes cannot be tested or verified. It also depends on countless assumptions (sub-theories) which likewise, cannot be tested or verified. Therefore this theory is not science at all, but a story - ie, pseudo-science. This theory is also perfectly useless to science … which is precisely what one would expect from pseudo-science.
3. The irrationality, psychological dependance, quasi-religious devotion to the aforementioned useless pseudo-science, and the totalitarian intolerance of dissenters exhibited by the scientific community, easily qualifies this behaviour as characteristic of a cult.

What is your evidence of design that you want recognized?

The internal architecture and functions of a cell.

Can you prove inanimate matter can’t produce life?

No, I can’t prove it. but science (mathematical probability) declares it utterly impossible. Francis Crick, who co-discovered DNA’s structure, estimated that the chance of EVEN ONE PROTEIN forming by chance is about one in 10^260. Borel’s law says odds of less than one in 10^50 constitutes a mathematical impossibility - in other words, the laws of mathematics says the chance of a cell forming by chance is so far beyond impossible, only a brain-dead ignoramus or a lunatic would believe such a thing is feasible.

 

[IWantGod]

Most, if not all, evolutionary scientists are atheists.

And we are all under their spell? But the fact is they are not all atheists. Surely they would all be atheist if evolution is just a conspiracy to undermine the Christian faith.

I think you should refrain from using this argument in the future. Its for your own good.

 

[Glark]

Let’s imagine for a moment, incorrectly though, that you’re right about evolution not benefiting modern biological studies.

My position is not that “evolution” is scientifically useless, but that the theory/conclusion/information that all life on earth evolved from microbes ( ie, microbe-man evolution) is scientifically useless. If you have evidence that proves me wrong, I’d love to see it

Even then evolution would serve our knowledge of how the human body came about. We’re naturally curious as a species as to origins. Learning what ancient culture were like won’t change my day-to-day activities, but history is still useful to further my knowledge of where humanity has been and sates a desire for knowledge. So too, at the least, does evolution offer insight to our biological past.

You are equating “knowledge” and “insight” and “useful” to a theory that cannot be tested and verified. In other words, you are talking nonsense.

 

[Glark]

Evolution provides the basis for developing a hypothesis, which can be tested. This is guidance.

No, it’s just empty talk and story-telling. How has the theory that all life evolved from microbes proven useful to applied science? You can’t provide even one example!

 

[Glark]

You’re making comments that demonstrate that you don’t understand how evolution works

An example, please.

and why every biological discipline agrees that it is the foundational theory in their discipline.

Enough of the vacuous rhetoric. Please demonstrate how the theory that all life evolved from microbes is foundational to applied biology. I challenge you to provide even one example of a practical use for his theory.

 

[Glark]

Microevolution - fact.

Macroevolution - a theory that is almost certainly fantasy

 

[Glark]

You are conflating why a false, Masonic “Catholic” Church teaches and what the true Catholic Church would teach (if she could get any air-time).

 

[Glark]

If a alligator went to the desert, how do you think that would turn out ?Alligator jerky ?

No, it would quickly evolve into a camel. That how evolutionary science works - magic.

 

[Glark]

Why is the scientific community totally obsessed with this useless theory? Why is this useless theory taught to children as something vitally important they should know?

 

[Rhubarb]

I can’t give you an intro to evolutionary biology course. It would take forever, and I’m not qualified. However I’m sure your local community college can, and it would be very affordable.

What you’re asking is akin to “please prove to me that things are made of matter.” The fact that you phrase the question as you have proves that you aren’t even conversationally familiar with what evolution is. But… practical uses. Okay. Medical research, especially in immunology. Population biology. Agriculture, animal husbandry. All of these fields depend upon evolution as the fundamental theory that explains what it is they do and why. Your doctors all depend upon it as the foundation of medicine and why medicine does what it does once the subject is drilled down to the very basics.

I mean, you don’t have to take it from me. My expertise in biology is limited to a handful of courses. But the research and arguments are there to find if you have the intellectual courage to do it.

Please note that evolution DOES NOT mean abiogenesis. Nor does it necessarily conflict with your faith. Your bishops have said that time and time again. But let’s be honest with one another. You aren’t going to be convinced by anything anyone says here. And that’s alright. I doubt there are many specialists in the field that post regularly, and who want to wade into an internet argument about it. It’s going to take more time and digital ink than what a message board has to break down evolutionary biology 101.

Evolution | Definition, History, Types, & Examples

Evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of...

www.britannica.com

 

[IWantGod]

You are conflating why a false, Masonic “Catholic” Church teaches and what the true Catholic Church would teach (if she could get any air-time).

And this is the point where you have started acting outside the authority of the Catholic Church and have begun attacking it. Masonic Catholic Church? Is that what you think of the Pope? Next thing you will be telling me he is not a legitimate Pope.

 

[Glark]

You think Popes are not capable of heresy? Pope Honorius 1 (625 - 638) was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council of the Catholic Church (680).

 

[IWantGod]

You are not just condemning the Pope as a heretic here. You are condemning the teaching of the Catholic Church as heresy. You are condemning the Catholic authority. Who do you think you are?

 

[Glark]

I don’t recall accussing anyone of heresy. But you should know, you’re an expert in Canon Law and what constitutes heresy!

One thing I know for sure - there is no shortage of fake Catholics and fake teachings in the modern Church.

 

[IWantGod]

I don’t recall accussing anyone of heresy. But you should know, you’re an expert in Canon Law and what constitutes heresy!

Indirectly you do, in the following quote. It’s the implications of your words that reveals your intentions. Throughout this debate there has been an overarching theme. Those who reject evolution are good Catholics, and those who accept it are heretics. It becomes obvious every time someones says “this is a catholic website for Catholics”

You are conflating why a false, Masonic “Catholic” Church teaches and what the true Catholic Church would teach (if she could get any air-time).

In other words, the Catholic authority supports the teaching that it is okay for its members to support the scientific theory of evolution, and according to you, this Catholic authority is an heretical authority and not the real Catholic Church. What else could you possibly mean by “false, Masonic “Catholic” Church”.

The problem is, this real Catholic Church that you think you are a part of i have never heard of, and i doubt anyone else has either. You crossed the line when you decided that you know better.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Please provide an example of how accepting the theory of microbe-man evolution will help me serve my God.

Please describe how accepting the theory of relativity or the theory of molecular orbits will help me serve my God. Yet I don’t hear you rail against them as being useless. You should also consider that most useful theories started out as basic theories without immediate applications. It is a fact that useful applications come from basic research.

 

[anon65111186]

What made him a “Great Saint”? Are you referring to his amazing accumulation of Frequent Flyer points?

How disrespectful you are, it’s unbelievable.

To answer your question, let’s start with the fall of communism in Poland and europe, his New evangelization and world youth days which inspired millions of young Catholics, including me to be on fire for the faith, his many writings on “love and responsibility” and the genius “theology of the body”, his own personal holiness and forgiveness of the man who tried to assasinate him, the asking forgiveness for the Church’s legitimate sins in the past which did a great deal of good for those holding grudges against the Church, his ecumenism and yes visiting every country to spread the gospel far and wide.

That you belittle his travels and show scorn shows you don’t really know JPII, among other things.

 

[Aloysium]

Adam’s mother would’ve had an in the moment soul and not been a true human, but still sharing biological similarities. And Adam would’ve had an immortal soul from his conception and been a true human.

Physically there’s not a lot of difference between us and those last few door stops, but spiritually we are wholly distinct from our predecessors.

That makes sense if nature created us or if it were the process by which we were created by God.

We appear to share the belief that we are made up of matter/dust, which is “organized” by our spirit, the same as everything else on earth, which exists as a different type of being. In Genesis God forms Adam’s body and breathes in His Spirit. I would agree that He could have done so through billions of years, shaping nature, creating and building on the environment in successive “days”. However, there is a subtle but important difference between our two views. From my perspective, the reality is the person, whose body is not something that is filled with a spirit, but is rather one with the body and created as such. God being God, and not nature itself, it would be far “easier” to simply bring Adam into existence, as we will in the final resurrection, without the trouble of growing him in an animal womb and having a pack of hominids take care of him as he grows. It isn’t necessary.

The reason why there would be hominids in the fossil record is because God as “designer” (I don’t actually like this way to describe Him - He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit - Divine Love) had to get the information as to what works on earth, and Eden was on earth. Matter can be understood as information that feeds the self-other relationship that applies to the existential nature of everything, from the smallest to the biggest things, which exist as themselves and/or part of something larger, in the universe, to the angels and ultimately God. He brought that knowledge together in the formation of the first human being, who then was made two, to be reunited as one in Love.