Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, I don’t believe darwinian or neo-darwinian evolution is true especially as it concerns macro-evolution. There appears to be some evidence for what is called micro-evolution which pertains to some adaptability within a certain species. I personally favor what is called ‘progressive creationism’ which is essentially what Genesis 1 speaks about in the six days of creation and formation of the world after which God rests on the seventh day. The six days do not have to be taken as six 24 hour days as the Pontifical Biblical Commission stated in the early 20th century. Interestingly, God’s work of creation as described in Genesis 1 didn’t end that long ago with the creation of man and woman. In the production of the bodies of the first man and woman, i.e., Adam and Eve, I literally hold to Genesis 2. That is, I believe God directly and immediately formed Adam’s body from the dust or slime of the earth, i.e., from inanimate matter and then God created and infused a spiritual soul into him and ‘man became a living being.’ I believe God immediately and directly formed Eve’s body by taking some matter from Adam’s side, his rib while he was asleep and then God created and infused a spiritual soul into Eve’s body.

I don’t know if anybody has mentioned this on this thread or not but there is an excellent book out titled ‘Catholicism and Evolution - A History from Darwin to Pope Francis’ (2015) by Rev. Michael Chaberek, O.P. Fr. Chaberek also has written another excellent work titled ‘Aquinas and Evolution’ (2017).
 
Darwin, thank you so much for your theory and the work that you did. I hope you can forgive the Atheists and Christians that have used your work as an excuse to alienate others.
 
Yes. As scientists find more and more complexity the possibility that this occurred over time drops by orders of magnitude. Time is running out. So, the time component will drop to ‘no chance’ as discoveries will overwhelm it and scientists will no longer be able to use it effectively as an argument. Right now, it is a dead letter. There was not enough time.

Bioinformatics will accelerate this. “Bioinformatics … is an interdisciplinary field that develops methods and software tools for understanding biological data. As an interdisciplinary field of science, bioinformatics combines Computer Science, Biology, Mathematics, and Engineering to analyze and interpret biological data.”
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Darwin, thank you so much for your theory and the work that you did. I hope you can forgive the Atheists and Christians that have used your work as an excuse to alienate others.
Click to expand...
That’s sweet… :hugs:
 
Glark said:
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.
Click to expand...
Good for them, they are entitled to their opinions, right or wrong. It would be odd if 100% of scientists agreed on a theory, and suspicious. You should expect some to reject the theory, proves nothing.
 
This post is taken from,another thread, but I believe it contributes to the discussion here.
buffalo said:
There were way less “species” than you think. It also does not take that long for adaptation to cause the variations we see. That used to be an old argument, but it is now passe.
Click to expand...
You’ve been arguing against evolution, @Buffalo , but in that post you just stated you believe it. That it accounts for species distinction post-Flood, given you believe it was a world-wide one. Alibi it’s on a much quicker scale from your opinion than science says, but what you’re saying, species evolving with adaptations to their environment and speciating is what evolution is all about.

@Aloysium I keep meaning to reread your replies to me earlier. I’ll get to it eventually since there were some interesting things,
 
I wonder how evolutionary science explains feminism - everywhere it is embraced by a society, it produces ageing populations; ie, , more people dying than being born - as a result of women not having enough babies. Not sure how this enhances a species chances of survival - seems to have the opposite effect! As Margaret Thatcher said, " Feminism is poison".
 
rossum said:
Wrong. A nested hierarchy of life on eart
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this is nothing more than an assumption (read: atheist fantasy). Evidence-wise your “nested hierarchy of life on earth” has gigantic gaps in it. There is no fossil evidence for the transitions from one major group to another - for example, from reptiles to birds (just as there Is no fossil evidence for Gnome to Tooth Fairy).
 
rossum said:
I have already posted the Marbled Crayfish on this thread, which cannot interbreed with its ancestor species. That is the evolution of a new species.
Click to expand...
And you regard this as solid evidence that humans evolved from microbes? Wow. By the standards of real science, this is laughable. One of the three pillars of evolution science is Wishful Thinking, and you have here provided a perfect example of it.
Perhaps you can reciprocate by showing us evidence of God directly creating a new species.
Click to expand...
Study the fossil record. Plus there is the evidence of thousands of years of intensive animal and plant breeding by humans shows that animal “evolution” has limits.
 
Last edited:
vz71 said:
The only evidence there is that it was not noticed or known before.
The article itself compared it to cancer.
And you want us to think it progress.
Click to expand...
Once I had a cancer on my leg and it evolved into a budgerigar. The doctor eventually surgically removed it and it flew away. Evolution is truth.
 
Last edited:
anon65111186 said:
Good for them, they are entitled to their opinions, right or wrong. It would be odd if 100% of scientists agreed on a theory, and suspicious. You should expect some to reject the theory, proves nothing.
Click to expand...
Er, you seem to have missed the point - the fact there are Professors of Biology who reject the “information” that all life evolved from microbes proves that that information is irrelevant and useless to real-world biology. Case closed; you lose.
 
Last edited:
Nope.

Evolution isn’t a social movement, a political position, or an evolution. It’s just a scientific theory which is vastly superior to any other in explaining why animals are the way they are, now and throughout the geologic record.
 
I would guess that those Professors of Biology™ probably aren’t evolutionary biologists. Want to take a guess on what percent of all biologists do not believe that life evolved from microbes? Or in your desperate attempt to find an authority upon which to base your appeal to authority, are you willing to cherry-pick the one or two Christian biologists who want to put up a token resistance?
 
If you are referring to the overall quality of the human species, you may be right about that. I think it’s very possible that the species overall is becoming sicker, weaker and stupider.
 
Glark said:
There is no fossil evidence for the transitions from one major group to another - for example, from reptiles to birds
Click to expand...
Your sources are flat out lying to you. There is ample evidence of the dinosaur bird transitions, and there has been ever since Archaeopteryx was found in 1861. More recently a wide range of other transitional fossils have been found in China.

Why do you believe what lying sources tell you?

rossum
 
Glark said:
And you regard this as solid evidence that humans evolved from microbes?
Click to expand...
No. I regard it as solid evidence that macroevolution can occur; that a new species can evolve from an earlier species. Some in this thread were expressing doubts as to whether macroevolution was still happening.

The evidence for the evolution of life on earth from a common ancestor covers a far wider range than the Marbled Crayfish.

rossum
 
rossum said:
People with Trisomy X are classified as human because they can breed with standard humans.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t respond earlier because my anger overwhelmed my pity.

Here’s a consequence of these sorts of illusion:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Translated from the German it says "60,000 Reichsmark is what this person suffering from a hereditary defect costs the People’s community during his lifetime. Fellow citizen, that is your money too. Read A New People, the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP. "
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Darwin, thank you so much for your theory and the work that you did. I hope you can forgive the Atheists and Christians that have used your work as an excuse to alienate others.
Click to expand...
Let’s clarify what is going on here.

Arguments have been made appealing to research, common sense and reason, that demonstrate not only how Darwinism is not true, the question asked in this thread, but that it is bad science and essentially a story to define who we are in these times of alienation from God.

You may wish, in your self-refelections, consider where the alienation you speak of, might be coming from. To me it sounds like you are feeling alienated. I’m sorry that my conveying the the truth as best as I can understand and verbalize it, is making you feel that way, but I am not responsible for your feelings. The roots of alienation always are to be found in our relationship with God. Sometimes it is a sort of compass, telling us we are on the wrong track. God will also turn His face from us, for His reasons and the ultimate good of all. When we alienate others, fail to love, we are ultimately alienating ourselves from them. Often times our hidden, unconfessed guilt keeps us from being whole within ourselves, and hidden from others, we feel alienated.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top