Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Glark said:
The theory of tectonic plates cannot be used to produce doubts about the existence of
God or promote atheism.
Click to expand...
This proves what I said. The objection to evolution is based solely on a perceived conflict with religion and not on scientific grounds.

And the conflict with religion is only a perception, not a reality. The fact that some people incorrectly use evolution to promote atheism does not make the theory an atheistic theory. In fact, the very act of insisting on denial of evolution being a pre-requisite to belief in God is exactly what empowers these fallacious efforts to discredit religion. If you really want to stop people from turning to atheism, drop this unnecessary pre-requisite, just as the early Christians dropped the requirement of circumcision.
 
Last edited:
Not disagreeing with you, I would add that in terms of God’s love, we are equal and have a duty to love one another as He loves us. That love accords us the dignity that is inherent in being human.

I’m not digressing since that is what this thread is all about, beyond what otherwise amounts to useless speculation.
 
anon65111186 said:
Bacteria multiplies extremely quickly, and babies grow from one cell to a baby in 9 months. Evolution isn’t that amazing once you realize the amazing things that make up evolution are already happening.
Click to expand...
I’m trying not to read into what you are saying here, but what I hear is that babies are not that amazing, when each is miraculous, uniquely irreplaceable, and that the person who is physically at a stage of being one cell, is like a bacteria. There would exist a chasm between that vision and mine, and no doubt the acceptance of evolutionary theory might play a role.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
40.png
Glark:
The theory of tectonic plates cannot be used to produce doubts about the existence of God or promote atheism.
Click to expand...
So if someone purports to draw a conclusion (say, about the existence of God) from a theory - which conclusion is in fact no part of the theory, nor a logical necessity of the theory - then the theory is to be condemned. Makes sense. :roll_eyes:

What we are seeing on this thread is fear of science, masquerading as hatred and derision.
Click to expand...
It’s a pity to write off an argument in that manner. But it does defend against one’s own nagging doubts that may lead to who knows where.
 
Jesus often challenged their ideas of Scripture, astonished the students of the Law.

But why would you say that interpretation was unknown? It is not like this wasn’t common in the Patristics.
 
Rau said:
What we are seeing on this thread is fear of science, masquerading as hatred and derision.
Click to expand...
Do we fear a bunch of egghead scientist who think they are smarter than everyone else…No .
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
I’m trying not to read into what you are saying here, but what I hear is that babies are not that amazing, when each is miraculous, uniquely irreplaceable, and that the person who is physically at a stage of being one cell, is like a bacteria. There would exist a chasm between that vision and mine, and no doubt the acceptance of evolutionary theory might play a role.
Click to expand...
Just the opposite, babies are very amazing, my wife is due any day now with our second one.

Bacteria don’t develop into babies in 9 months, but bacteria multiply even faster than baby cells.

Amazing changes can happen though in 9 months, even though the zygote begins extremely simple and undifferentiated.

Just like stem cells can develop into many things in one generation, those first bacteria changed into something quite different over time, though not necessarily in the same generation.

Thus when the new cells reproduce and mature they make new species every period, be it a few generation period or 10,000 generation period.
 
Last edited:
You should be aware that what you describe is more in line with creation in that the original organism contains the potential for the diversity that follows. This is opposed to evolutionary theory which holds that matter connects with other matter solely by virtue of its defining properties, and only by happenstance is there diversity, one error in reproduction at a time.
 
Last edited:
Bombardier beetle has a unique defensive mechanism. It induces a chemical explosion inside its shell to create a boiling, toxic liquid which it sprays at its aggressor. Now researchers in the US have discovered how it does this, and they hope that further study of the conditions inside the beetle that allow it to produce the jet without harming itself may inform real world technologies.

Previously, only external observations had been made of bombardier beetles as they produced the superheated spray. However, a team of researchers from MIT, the University of Arizona, and the Brookhaven National Laboratory were able to use high-speed synchrotron X-ray imaging to observe the intricacies of the process taking place inside the half inch beetle.

The boiling, superheated spray known as benzoquinone is created by combining two chemicals in a protective blast chamber located in the hindquarters of the beetle. The resultant chemical reaction boils the mixture, simultaneously creating the pressure required to expel it at a predator.

https://newatlas.com/bombardier-beetle-defensive-
 
C’mon. That’s easily explained by… uh… never mind. It must have happened all by itself.

Not.
 
And the materialist position as defined by Richard Lewontin:

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.
 
Last edited:
“The process is astonishingly simple. In the embryo’s first moments, the Hox genes are dormant, packaged like a spool of wound yarn on the DNA. When the time is right, the strand begins to unwind. When the embryo begins to form the upper levels, the genes encoding the formation of cervical vertebrae come off the spool and become activated. Then it is the thoracic vertebrae’s turn, and so on down to the tailbone. The DNA strand acts a bit like an old-fashioned computer punchcard, delivering specific instructions as it progressively goes through the machine.”
“A new gene comes out of the spool every ninety minutes, which corresponds to the time needed for a new layer of the embryo to be built,” explains Duboule. “It takes two days for the strand to completely unwind; this is the same time that’s needed for all the layers of the embryo to be completed.” This system is the first “mechanical” clock ever discovered in genetics. And it explains why the system is so remarkably precise.” Source
 
Last edited:
Apply some random mutations and natural selection and in several trillion years it could happen. 😀
 
Boy, you are good. I wish I had mini hand grenades, but for some reason, mom and dad wouldn’t let me.
 
Aloysium said:
You should be aware that what you describe is more in line with creation in that the original organism contains the potential for the diversity that follows. This is opposed to evolutionary theory which holds that matter connects with other matter solely by virtue of its defining properties, and only by happenstance is there diversity, one error in reproduction at a tim
Click to expand...
Well, the potential for diversity (change) is in both circumstances, no? In the embryo, it can change into a baby. In the species to species example, the cell or animal has the potential for change in its DNA, thus creating the possibility for immediate or later change into another species.

That DNA change that might come into play immediately, or several generations later is potentially there in all things.

The potential for change is present in all things, thus the potential for evolution is present in all living creatures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top