Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not playing that game, you can find out for yourself. Its evident to me that no-matter what people show you, it doesn’t count in your eyes. You are stuck in your opinion.

If you are going to seriously argue that all evolutionary biologists are atheists, then you provide support for your argument. It’s just a googles click away.
 
Last edited:
Very little of the science he is grounded on is empirical, therefore not really science, but the philosophy of scientism. The issue is, he has no clue.
 
In a previous post you asked me for the name of a highly qualified biologist who rejects the theory that all life on earth evolved from microbes. Here are a couple: Professor (of Biology) Carl B. Fliermans; Professor (of Biology) Lane P. Lester. In fact, they believe in a literal “six days” of creation. They (and others) are living proof that the theory of microbe-man evolution is an irrelevance to real-world biology.
 
After more than 150 years of belief in microbe-man evolution, not one, single, practical use has been found for it. In a thousand years time there will still be no use for it. Face it, your beloved theory is as useless as a corpse.
 
Last edited:
Scientism. Not a word most people would use in daily conversation but it fits. This is about a philosophical position.
 
Yes, there are two world views. Evolutionism or Creationism. By definition, all Catholics are creationists.
 
Glark said:
In a thousand years time there will still be no use for it.
Click to expand...
And… Red Robins will still be making Red Robins…and White Pelicans will still be making White Pelicans…Blue Whales will still be making Blue Whales…
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
Green Warblers speciate into more Green Warblers.
Click to expand...
Congratulations Glark, you are beginning to understand the origin of the nested hierarchy. Mammals speciate into more mammals. Primates speciate into more primates. Hominids speciate into more hominids.

That is the way evolution works.

rossum
 
Glark said:
Name one evolutionary biologist who isn’t an atheist.
Click to expand...
Ken Miller, who is a Catholic, albeit not a Glark-Catholic. Francis Collins, Keith Miller, Theodosius Dobzhannsky, Aziz Sancar. That is five.

Your lack of background research is showing here, Glark. In this case you are talking about an area where you lack knowledge.

rossum
 
Glark said:
Green Warblers speciate into more Green Warblers. Is this evidence that Green Warblers can evolve into something other than Green Warblers?
Click to expand...
If you choose to call them the same thing then they are the same thing by definition. But if we called the subspecies by different names, they would be different things. What we call them is surely inconsequential to whether evolution is occurring.

If you keep moving the goal post of what constitutes evidence for evolution, then of course no one will be able to show you evolution. If you set the goal post at “Show me a dog evolving into a whale in observed history” then that is an unreasonable request. Can you state, here and now, a reasonable criteria that would convince you of macro evolution? I thought you might be satisfied with a species evolving into something that could not interbreed with its relatives, but apparently interbreeding is not a sufficient boundary. I though you might be satisfied with dogs evolving into very different looking forms, but apparently that does not count either because they can interbreed. Wait, what? Now interbreeding is the criterion? You see what I mean? Whenever an example is offered, you find some additional boundary that was not yet crossed and demand that it be crossed before you will accept evolution. That’s what I mean by moving the goal post.
 
Robby_McCabe said:
Well, science itself is fine, based on observation, then hypothesis, then theory, then law after much experimentation. Has anyone ever observed one species evolving into another? Micro-evolution I yield to within a species, but never has micro-evolution yielded a new species (defined as an increase in environmental viability in it’s natural habitat in increased reproductive function). Point is, science have subjected species to simulated environmental stress hoping to produce a new species but have never been successful. So, thus far, evolution is nothing more than a theory, let alone a fact. On another point of science, archaeology (science) discovered a Neanderthal buried in a coffin with ceremonial dress on. Now, there brilliant conclusion was, this proves that Neanderthals had the first semblance of religion. Well, what if Neanderthals co-existed with humans (as is now known they did) and a human buried the Neanderthal. There is no evidence of the evolution of the 28,000 different languages I think it is, they all appear simultaneously in history. Tower of Babel? Oh no, couldn’t be that. Well, I think the SCIENCE fits the bible just fine, but not “conspiracy theory” as I believe evolution to be. All agriculture has it’s origin in the Iraq where the Garden of Eden would have been. Not to mention the Laws of Science, cause and effect, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and probability theory all favor creation rather than evolution … That’s science. You ever see the Sumerian “Fertility God” that’s so prominent in the first civilization? Can you think of a woman the first civilization would be venerating in statue? That exists in history? That would fit the description of a “Fertility Goddess”? How about Eve? But oh no, Eve was way after Sumeria? Really? You see the problem is not the science itself, it’s the world view and narrative of the scientists that shoehorn all the facts into an evolutionary theory that ends up being like a “Conspiracy Theory” in that they won’t even listen to another possible interpretation of the facts. It’s as obvious as, if there was a global flood up to the mountain tops, what would you find in the fossil record? How about millions of smashed animals in the throws of death under tons of sediment? wow, that kinda reminds me of what we find in the fossil record. Doesn’t it make sense that all animals were created and fixed into species by God? Considering how vacant the fossil record is of evolutionary links between species? I mean really, if evolution happened there would be more transitional fossils than fixed ones. But there aren’t. So, they go on making up fables and fiction about catastrophic events producing stress on species explaining jumps and getting into UFO’s and aliens… Really, can we just stop this nonsense and get back to Genesis?
Click to expand...
👍…
 
Perhaps it is unknown or it has been demonstrated that his group is not at all against the Church but is just like a fraternity. Or, as I said earlier, it is unknown of him.

Quite a few ecumenical movements are still in effect today, but calling St JPII a “nutter” seems very wrong, and Canonization is infallible (according to majority theological opinion). Not all saints have been canonized, which may be where the confusion comes from.

And, even if St John Paul II did sinfully act wrongly, then note that it doesn’t effect sainthood. Saints can sin, many saints were dastardly sinners. But it’s about the end.
 
You are not part of the “general council of the Catholic Church.” Insofar as you refuse to accept the teachings and doctrines of the Church, then you are, very literally, a heretic. Good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
These are not mutually exclusive. There are many possible combinations of those:
  1. Evolution is true, and is the only means by which life originated and speciated.
  2. Creationism (your Biblical version) is literally true, and is the only means by which life originated and speciated.
  3. The origins were 100% Creation, but further speciation was allowed by God, with the mechanism of evolution which HE put in place.
  4. God didn’t design advanced species except as an idea, and it is evolution, again put in place by Him, which is the mechanism of God’s will, and which did in fact arrive at the archetypal Man that Adam and Eve represent.
False dilemma = logic fail. Unless you want to fail in your argumentation, you would be best to introduce false dilemmas into the discussion.
 
The entire theory of evolution is by abduction.

Nope. God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.
 
rossum said:
Name one evolutionary biologist who isn’t an atheist.

Ken Miller, who is a Catholic, albeit not a Glark-Catholic. Francis Collins, Keith Miller, Theodosius Dobzhannsky, Aziz Sancar. That is five.

Your lack of background research is showing here, Glark. In this case you are talking about an area where you lack knowledge.

rossum
Click to expand...
Of these five, only Dobzhansky is described as an evolutionary biologist. Keith Miller is a geologist! Note: Dobzhansky believed human embryos had gills!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top