Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wording questions in a poll for anything is a bit of a science. First, no prejudicial wording. Questions should be neutral and not presumptive. After all, getting accurate responses requires careful wording. You could write:

I agree with this statement.

I disagree with this statement.

OR

I agree that this - whatever - is true.

I do not agree that this - whatever - is true.

For more detailed information, a review of the common objections to this or that needs to be conducted but should not be regarded as definitive or unbiased. In other words, those collecting information that is published as “common objections” may have an underlying bias.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Wording questions in a poll for anything is a bit of a science. First, no prejudicial wording. Questions should be neutral and not presumptive. After all, getting accurate responses requires careful wording.
Click to expand...
Thank you poll expert for your advice. I was summarizing what I saw to be the two biggest positions here on the thread, either you agree partially or you don’t at all. Some may fully agree with evolution, but that is not what I saw as at issue in the threads, therefore the polling language.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You are assuming there is only one conceivable path to this evolutionary result. Did you consider that the light came first, and then the structure behind the light lengthened?
Click to expand...
Er, no; I didn’t considered that possibility. Wow, that’s a wild idea. God has blessed you with a very fertile imagination … in which case, you ought to consider writing science-fiction novels or maybe children’s books. Or how about a career in evolutionary biology?
Then the most mysterious part is the evolution of the light itself. But that is no different from the explaining the light in a firefly. It could have been a chemical accident that first produced some light. Then that accident was amplified and light became stronger. But even if we have no idea how a particular evolutionary result was achieved, we cannot let our ignorance on this question substitute for an argument for impossibility.
Click to expand...
You have no empirical evidence that such things are even possible. All you have is an assumption and blind faith in evolution - ie, a story. And as is the wont of evolutionists, you do your best to “dumb down” what is no doubt an extremely complex mechanism.
 
Last edited:
anon65111186 said:
The Pope respectfully disagrees with you, because to him and many others, including me, you don’t have to “try to get” evolution to coexist, it already does.
Click to expand...
… which demonstrates in-part the reality of what Sister Lucy (Fatima) referred to as the “diabolical disorientation” that exists in the Church and Pope Paul VI’s words from 1975: “From some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered into the Temple of God.”
What proof would get you to believe there is evolution going on?
Click to expand...
To obtain proof, I would need, at the very least, a time-machine that can take me back billions of years.
 
Last edited:
anon65111186 said:
Here’s some proof of evolution:
Bed bugs are evolving before our eyes:

“In just the last few decades, these city-dwelling insects have become almost an entirely separate species from their cave-dwelling cousins. In addition to their new penchant for the nightlife, today’s urban bedbugs have also evolved resistance to pesticides: They have thicker, waxier exoskeletons (to shield them from toxins) and faster metabolisms (to beef-up their natural chemical defenses).”
Click to expand...
I agree that that is proof that said bed bugs are evolving and forming a nested hierarchy, but it is a nested hierarchy that will contain only bed bugs. What does bed bugs evolving into more bed bugs have to do with a microbe evolving into a human being?
 
Glark said:
To obtain proof, I would need, at the very least, a time-machine that can take me back billions of years.
Click to expand...
Umm okie dokie, if that is your only method of obtaining proof then you’re out of luck.

Have any other suggestions?
 
Last edited:
Like Young Earth Creationists, Schroder makes a fundamental error in reading Genesis 1, in my opinion: He considers the “six days” in which Adam was created as the beginning of the universe, ie, verse 1, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” However, the “six days” of creation don’t begin until verse 3, “And god said, ‘Let there be light’”. This refers to “light” on earth, before which “darkness was upon the face of the deep” (v.2).

Schroder also mistakenly thinks each creation day is described as “There was evening and there was morning”, which makes no sense, as it sounds like only half a day (a day doesn’t begin with evening and end with morning). This nonsensical description - which he says “has no relationship to human time” - seems to provide him with an excuse to claim that the length of a day is therefore not literal. However, as I’ve already mentioned, the beginning of the the first day begins with “Let there be light” (v.3) and ends with the light of “morning” (v.5), with “evening” in between. This makes perfect sense to “human time” and is no different to describing the length of a day as from dawn to dawn, with night in between.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
If you make your objection a little more reasonable, it can be met. One complaint we hear often is that observed adaptation is always within the same species, and that we have never observed species evolving into a different species. If you accept the standard definition of a species as that group of organisms capable of breeding between each other, it has already been observed that organisms evolve into organisms of a new species
Click to expand...
Speciation explains how a nested hierarchy can form. But to extrapolate from speciation all the way to a microbe evolving into a human being is just plain silly, not to mention very poor science.
 
And that is what’s being found in living things today: complex, integrated systems. And the storytelling here is just that, storytelling. The evidence is clear that among the best storytellers I know should also include some here who have very quick, but overly simplified, answers to any question as opposed to testable evidence. I’ve been a storyteller and contributing “idea man” for some years. The examples I’ve seen here do not meet the necessary tests of validity. Fictional storytelling, like here, needs only to seem plausible enough to the average reader, BUT to really get the full spectrum of potential readers of your work involved in the story, you need to know when to add bits of “it exists now” - whatever “it” may be - to the story. I’ve been involved in a lot of that. A little trade secret: 99% of any good story involves research.

However, I would never suggest children’s books. Stick to the science-fiction, but since the claims in this case are presented as real then maybe science-fiction wouldn’t work either.
 
Last edited:
Kei said:
But it was the beginning of creation, but 5 1/2 days later out of only 6 creating days doesn’t sound like the beginning in that sense, does it?
Click to expand...
You’re splitting hairs. Jesus wasn’t trying to be chronologically correct, he was discussing divorce, after all. I’m sure the Jews he was addressing knew that by “the beginning of creation” was a general reference to the entire six days of creation.
 
Last edited:
However, he relies on interpretation from Jewish sources, who may have some idea on how to interpret, in fact it sounds quite similar to other things.

His claim is not that it is not literal. In fact, his claim is that it is literal.

And then you say it is that light is on the Earth, only if the Earth is without form.

In fact, I do think a few Patristics agree it was the creation at first and then the forming.

My point is that if you complain about Adam and Eve being not at the beginning of Creation to me, it would make no sense as well in your view. I think it makes sense. But, in applying your own ideas to your other preconceived notion, it is in the same boat. That is my point.
 
Last edited:
Many folks are attracted to junk science because one doesn’t have to be very scientific. Evolution is the only branch of “science” where the machinations of a vivid imagination and making baseless assumptions are richly rewarded.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
You have no empirical evidence that such things are even possible.
Click to expand...
When speaking of something being “impossible,” the burden of proof in on the one who says it is impossible. Unless you have a solid reason and proof that something is possible, the default assumption is, as it should be in all such cases, that the thing is possible.

Long before man visited the moon, some people were saying it was impossible. They were wrong. That illustrates the problem in declaring something impossible just because no one has demonstrated how to do it.
Glark said:
40.png
rossum:
But it does mean that it may become a different species of roach.
Click to expand...
Er … and this fact is somehow related to a microbe evolving into a human?
Click to expand...
Yes, because the theorized mechanism for a microbe evolving into a human is the very same one that permits a roach to evolve into a different species of roach.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
What made the comment “antiScience”? It sounds more like anti-bad-science, speculation being passed off as fact. A story is created to fit the facts, and whether it has any validity cannot be known.
Click to expand...
Well said, amigo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top