Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
Show us your calculations please. You are making a claim about a number here, so you need to show your working.
Click to expand...
It is claimed by evolutionists that a piece of a reptile’s jaw bone evolved in the bones of the inner ear of a mammal. The probability of this happening has been calculated to be what?
 
goout said:
“You say”:. Respectfully, it doesn’t matter what you say in the least.
Practically speaking, the whole scientific community, including Catholic scientists, disagrees with you and accepts evolution as a very real and workable hypothesis or theory. As does the Church.
Click to expand...
I didn’t know the Church was infallible in matters of science.
 
Rau said:
Where do feel the massively overwhelming majority of relevant scientists sit on the question at hand? With you, or against you?

I object to the dismissal “out of hand” on reputedly scientific grounds, of positions accepted by the overwhelming majority of professional scientists.
Click to expand...
And the overwhelming majority of professional scientists say miracles are impossible.
 
Glark said:
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?
Click to expand...
Well, as it says, they are on the verge of being a new species. That is how drastically they have evolved, in such a short time mind you.
 
Wonder of creation and evolution 🙂 God be praised!
 
Last edited:
Dr Douglas Axe did experiment to find out how likely random mutations would be to create even a single new functional protein, and found that even to make one single protein at random was virtually impossible in the time available to the evolutionary process. If one protein is virtually impossible, much more impossible is the complete version of evolution based on random mutation. It’s explained in the video “Information Enigma” that I posted earlier.

The study is online. There you have it. Evolution disproven with arithmetic + rational thinking. 🙂

Loading…

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
Aloysium said:
It’s up to you to prove that random genetic mutations do anything but kill things.
Click to expand...
Achondroplasia is a genetic mutation. It is not fatal. HbC is a genetic mutation. It is not fatal. Down Syndrome is a genetic mutation. It is not fatal. Lactase persistence is a genetic mutation. It is not fatal. Apo A-I Milano is a genetic mutation. It is not fatal.

Your sources are lying to you by omission. Those are just examples I can think of off the top of my head without doing any research.

Oh yes, blue eyes are a mutation. That is not fatal either.

Why do you believe sources that lie to you so obviously?

rossum
 
Glark said:
Yes - they can evlove into other bacteria … just like dogs can evolve into other dogs.
Click to expand...
Congratulations, you have learned something. That is how the tree of life is formed. Once a branch is present, all developments from that branch are also part of that branch. That is why we say birds are dinosaurs: they evolved from earlier dinosaurs and dinosaurs can only evolve into dinosaurs.

rossum
 
Glark said:
It is claimed by evolutionists that a piece of a reptile’s jaw bone evolved in the bones of the inner ear of a mammal. The probability of this happening has been calculated to be what?
Click to expand...
Why would we need to calculate anything? We have the fossils showing the change. We can see it happened.

rossum
 
The case you are trying to present is that evolution is a disease. Or perhaps, that there are no diseases, it is all the same. But then, the question becomes one of why there is so much consistency.

I know quite a bit about the eye from personal experience, but don’t have time to get into it other than to say that blue eyes have to do with the Tyndall effect (see sky), the amount of collagen in the stroma of the iris and melanin in its epithelium. Variations in these produce eye colour.

Along with the word evolution, which has a slippery meaning, we see mutation being used to describe the existence of blue eyes, which you attribute to physical glitches in genomic reproduction. This need not be the case. Nor is it that it is likely, if at all possible, that diversity is the outcome of such events.

There is variation in the genome among members of the human family. This can happen as a result of physical factors and would be in keeping with the model of Intelligent Design. From all-encompassing genetic perfection in Adam, it’s a downhill course for humanity. Just like we each as individuals get old, so is our species. Or from a pluripotential first parent, all this diversity follows.

That which is humanity, manifests itself as a different individual person with each conception. The physical aspect, the body is like the tip of an iceberg, that which is available to the senses. The rest is knowable through the intellect. There are a number of possible scenarios into which we can fit the data. To me evolutionary theory seems the most far-fetched.

Your lying bit is so 1960’s Jefferson Airplane. Here, on one side, there’s Glark warning of Satan’s reach into the Vatican and on the other, there’s you seeing liars hiding in the virtual stacks of Internet wisdom, pseudoscience thorns among the wheat of Wikipedia. You may wish to heed your own advice.
 
Glark said:
40.png
goout:
“You say”:. Respectfully, it doesn’t matter what you say in the least.
Practically speaking, the whole scientific community, including Catholic scientists, disagrees with you and accepts evolution as a very real and workable hypothesis or theory. As does the Church.
Click to expand...
I didn’t know the Church was infallible in matters of science.
Click to expand...
Who claimed it was? Who even mentioned infallibility?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top