Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

[Aloysium]

Genesis is a complete story that tells us not only of how we are ontologically structured, as do sacred scriptures of other faiths, but also how this all came about. It is both physically and metaphysically true. Eden’s gps location, I imagine, would have been somewhere in Northern Africa. But that’s just a guess based on statistics of gene mutations of people as they spread throughout the world. It doesn’t matter one way or another. The greatest genetic diversity exists in Africa which means that mankind has lived there there the longest and that it was the source of migrating groups, which underwent a different set of mutations to their genome. Northern Africa because that is where our Lord was born.

 

[anon65111186]

Northern Africa because that is where our Lord was born.

Refer to the map:

 

[anon65111186]

Darwinistic mythos that provides us with a distorted image of who we are in the universe

Can you define Darwinistic mythos? Do you just mean materialism? Materialism is a problem, but that isn’t what Darwinism is about, that there is only material.

Why isn’t Darwinistic mythos condemned if it is such a thing?

Anyhow, the thread topic is “Is Darwin’s Theory of Evolution True?” My claim is yes, it is true. The Church affirms it is more than a theory, and has a lot of evidence to support it, and it can help us to praise God. The last three Popes subscribed to it with qualifications, so in that way, they also affirm it is true, at least to a certain extent.

 

[Kei]

If they evolved from dogs, there would be no more dogs left. That’s how it works.

This isn’t strictly true, is it? It isn’t necessary for a mutation to outlive the creature from which it came, but merely that it a) survive and b) procreate in a way to pass on the mutation. If there was a drastic ecological change like land to sea I don’t see why there’d be any problem considering the resources would be completely different.

 

[edwest211]

Some wishful thinking here. Science must rule. The Technocracy must rule. All this religious mumbo-jumbo is just stuff “evolution” created. I’m not seeing any evidence to support it. Biologists do their work without it as best they can. Through trial and error. Evolution provides no guidance. Science can only be about the material, so materialism it is.

 

[anon65111186]

Some wishful thinking here.

Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality.

I thought I referred to the fact that the Church affirms it is more than a theory, that there is a lot of evidence to support it and that Popes have partially subscribed to it. None of that is wishful thinking.

Science must rule. The Technocracy must rule. All this religious mumbo-jumbo is just stuff “evolution” created.

That is the ethos? Are you sure that Darwinism caused all that? Provide some facts to back up that claim.

Biologists do their work without it as best they can. Through trial and error. Evolution provides no guidance.

Evolution provides the basis for developing a hypothesis, which can be tested. This is guidance. Read the academic journals which are full of evolution-based guidance. Without guidance a lot of research would not be undertaken. So thinking it doesn’t give guidance would fit “wishful thinking” better because it isn’t based in reality.

Science can only be about the material, so materialism it is.

Can you test that theory scientifically, and rule out everything but material and prove that material is all there is? Scientists have tried and failed to prove that material is all there is, but they can’t. It is an assumption which can be tested and is not yet verified.

 

[edwest211]

Nonsense. Enjoy playing the game.

 

[Kei]

Imagine a speck. The speck opens up at the top. What’s this? It seems things are coming from the speck. It takes root. It starts to grow. The speck is a seed. Out of the dirt you see a small plant growing. You bend over to inspect it. It’s a vibrant green in a field of dark soil. It strikes you as…sparking something within you. The next day, you bring a pot and decide to bring the plant to your house, so you may watch it grow. You feel it can teach you…something. But, when you try to pick it up, the roots go deeper than you imagined. No bother, you just dig deeper, careful to not harm the plant in any way. But it keeps going. You can’t find the edge of the roots. So, you

 

[anon65111186]

Nonsense. Enjoy playing the game.

What is nonsense, be more specific. You enjoy playing the game, or you want me to enjoy playing it. Are we talking about PC games?

 

[edwest211]

That does seem to be part of the script: keepin’ it vague.

 

[anon65111186]

That does seem to be part of the script: keepin’ it vague.

That drives me bonkers, clarity people, clarity, it isn’t a lot to ask. Seriously.

 

[anon65111186]

Imagine a speck. The speck opens up at the top. What’s this? It seems things are coming from the speck. It takes root. It starts to grow. The speck is a seed. Out of the dirt you see a small plant growing. You bend over to inspect it. It’s a vibrant green in a field of dark soil. It strikes you as…sparking something within you. The next day, you bring a pot and decide to bring the plant to your house, so you may watch it grow. You feel it can teach you…something. But, when you try to pick it up, the roots go deeper than you imagined. No bother, you just dig deeper, careful to not harm the plant in any way. But it keeps going. You can’t find the edge of the roots. So, you

Been watching too much James and the Giant Peach… hahah

 

[IWantGod]

If Eden was a real physical place on earth then where has it gone? Of course there is a real place where everyone originates from. But the garden of Eden is depicted as a sacred special place from which we were expelled and cannot return. Obviously that place, assuming it was physical, does not exist on the planet earth or we would have come across an angry angel by now with a spinning fiery sword saying “you shall not pass”

 

[edwest211]

Eden was a physical place. The Bible set its boundaries.

 

[IWantGod]

Eden was a physical place. The Bible set its boundaries.

Then where is it? Where is the famous tree that holds the knowledge of good and evil? Where is the Angel guarding its entrance?

Clearly that place is not to be taken literally. It is not a real place.

 

[edwest211]

Creation was corrupted after The Fall. Original Sin occurred. But science is all that matters it seems.

 

[IWantGod]

Anti-evolution = Resistance to change.

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

 

[Rhubarb]

My next post clarified.

 

[Glark]

The thing is you attack evolution as denying scripture yet postulate something without Biblical backing.

Well, you’re partly correct - not only is there no Biblical support for evolution, one has to grossly distort Scripture to squeeze it in there. Then there’s the bizarre and idiotic story about pre-Adam human beings existing without souls (a story which, disturbingly, is just fine and dandy to the leaders of the Church). Theistic evolutionists would also have us believe that God deliberately misleads readers of His Word with a fairy tale about “six days” of creation instead of telling the truth (billions of years of evolution).

The whole Bible-evolution thing is a pathetic contrivance; a shaky little house built on sand. It represents the Church’s sad and embarrassing capitulation to “scientific” opinion (aka, a lie put into the minds of an army of atheists by demons). And here is perhaps the strangest part: All this ado is for the sake of a very suspect scientific theory that can never be tested or verified and is completely useless! This represents a truly weird phenomenon in the history of the Church.

(“For the time is coming when people will not endure sounding teaching, but having itching ears they accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2Tim 4:2-4).)

On the other hand and unlike theistic evolution, my idea about a creation that existed before the “six days” creation doesn’t require any denial of Scripture at all or rely on some demented exegesis - it’s based on a simple literal reading of the text and is not entirely unbiblical (for example, there is Jeremiah 4:23 and the fall of the angels, led by Lucifer, to consider). Furthermore, I not dogmatic about it. The only reason I consider it at all as a possibility is that it might explain what scientists claim is revealed in the geological and fossil records - which is actually kind of pointless anyway, as “the man in the street” can only guess what the geological and fossil records reveals, since the scientific community can’t be trusted to interpret the evidence objectively and honestly.

It’s not that lack of explicit Biblicalness that I find objectionable, but that you hold evolution as false and pagan as contradicting scripture when the idea you postulate would also do so.

My idea is “false” and “pagan”? How do prove it is false? How is it pagan?

 

[Glark]

The relevant portion being … “The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.”
Which is open as heck to interpretation. It essentially hand waives the whole debacle away as nonimportant

Open as heck to interpretation? You could have fooled me.

What do think “scientific studies” into “the origins of … man” refers to? Genesis creation, maybe? Not likely!

What do think " scientific studies" into “the development of life-forms and the appearance of man” refers to?

The answer to these questions seems blatantly obvious to me: Darwinism (microbe-man evolution).