Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, yeah, yeah - we have heard this all before.

Your theory will not overcome the functional specified complex information. The barrier is too great.

It is time to come home Rossum.
 
Glark said:
This is a very common accusation levelled at creationists (evo-deniers) on every atheist site on the planet. It’s baselsss and silly.
Click to expand...
It’s a good accustation, and it is an occasion for sadness when an atheist has a better sense of Catholic thought than a professing Catholic.
That is sad.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
40.png
Metis1:
Souls I don’t know much about, but fossils I know quite a bit about.
Click to expand...
I could spend years reading about the fossil record, but all I would be doing is reading what someone else tells me is there. Chances are, that “someone else” is an atheist who belives with all his heart and mind that evolution is a fact, so what he tells me may be evolution-correct, but not necessarily objective and truthful.
Click to expand...
Perfect example of ad hominem attack.
 
You are right. Theistic evolution is not compatible. It is either Catholicism or atheism.
 
buffalo said:
Your theory will not overcome the functional specified complex information.
Click to expand...
Maybe and maybe not. First we need an objective way to measure “functional specified complex information”. I do not have a problem with “complex” or “information”, there are objective ways to measure both of those. I do require an objective way to measure both “functional” and “specified”.

For example, non-coding DNA has a function in that it reduces the proportion of deleterious mutations since mutations in non-coding DNA are neutral, having no effect. We know that evolutionary processes can increase the amount of non-coding DNA, which allows an increase in functional information.

As to “specified” you will need to find a way to ensure that the target is not painted on the barn wall after the arrow is shot. The target needs to be there first, before the arrow is fired. That is not as simple as it seems to specify objectively.

rossum
 
The gap between what NS can do and design is enormous. Deep down you know this. As we discover more the gap only increases and your job defending it is getting more difficult and not easier.

Keep holding out though.
 
Aloysium said:
I think we agree that from bone we cannot tell if a creature was human or not.

Thinking this out, a man would not have existed to be given a soul. And an animal possesses it own soul.

The question then is how was man formed from the earth?

Jesus was resurrected as we will be. That isn’t going to happen by any sort of evolutionary process. Jesus was incarnated in a human womb, man and God. It was not in an instant but to be fully human. We don’t know how we were shaped and it doesn’t matter because it was God who made it so for His purposes.

There was no randomness to our creation and we procreate as part of our psychospiritual make-up. Natural selection plays a role only in disease. There’s no evolution in any of this. The most we can say as believers is that perhaps God made preliminary sketches before He decided on the final physical form.

The intersection of eternity and time is understandable from outside of time; within time it is very confusing.
Click to expand...
I gotta be quick.

We can usually tell by the dentition if a fossil is human or ape, and human dentition evolved even long after the probable split, with our overbite being the last significant change.

Secondly, we know for certain that randomness does occur because even your genes indicate a randomness from both sides of your family.

Thirdly, natural selection very much affected our evolution as well as did mutation and genetic drift. Whether it was God-guided cannot be determined but is at the least hypothetically possible. Most Christian theologians do accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it, and this includes Pope Francis.

Finally, may you & yours have a Very Merry Christmas.
 
Glark said:
I could spend years reading about the fossil record, but all I would be doing is reading what someone else tells me is there. Chances are, that “someone else” is an atheist who belives with all his heart and mind that evolution is a fact, so what he tells me may be evolution-correct, but not necessarily objective and truthful.
Click to expand...
Believe what you want but most Christian theologians accept the basic ToE and are not atheists, nor am I.

So, going by what you say above, I must assume that you think that Pope Francis is an atheist because he says there’s evidence that we are a by-product of an evolutionary process. If you don’t believe me, then maybe google it and see for yourself.
 
buffalo said:
The gap between what NS can do and design is enormous.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. I would not expect natural selection alone to be able to design something like the Mona Lisa or the Large Hadron Collider.
buffalo said:
Deep down you know this.
Click to expand...
Your alleged mind-reading powers have failed you. You are projecting your own unsupported ideas onto me. And remember that alongside natural selection I include random mutation , which you omitted in your first sentence.

Your own personal assumptions do not have any objective support, as with your failed attempt at mind-reading.

Please show us a DNA sequence that cannot be produced by random mutation and natural selection.

rossum
 
Quite right. Our primitive beliefs and superstitions stand in the way for some. Science has been proclaimed god, and further, a few here proclaim that “we can’t tell” between a process guided by God and a process guided by a ““modern”” worldview. Let’s have a look at the French Revolution for a moment.

“The Cult of Reason (French: Culte de la Raison)[note 1] was France’s first established state sponsored atheistic religion, intended as a replacement for Roman Catholicism during the French Revolution. It also rivaled Robespierre’s Cult of the Supreme Being.”

If there is no difference, then religion can be discarded.
 
edwest211 said:
Quite right. Our primitive beliefs and superstitions stand in the way for some. Science has been proclaimed god, and further, a few here proclaim that “we can’t tell” between a process guided by God and a process guided by a ““modern”” worldview. Let’s have a look at the French Revolution for a moment.

“The Cult of Reason (French: Culte de la Raison)[note 1] was France’s first established state sponsored atheistic religion, intended as a replacement for Roman Catholicism during the French Revolution. It also rivaled Robespierre’s Cult of the Supreme Being.”

If there is no difference, then religion can be discarded.
Click to expand...
And your observations have bearing on this topic in what way…?
The fact that you distrust atheism (you should) has nothing to do with the validity of these sciences.
That fact that many scientists are atheist has no bearing on the science either.
(would you let an atheist surgeon save your life…?)

A thing is either well supported or it’s not. What you are doing is vague ad-hominem against scientists and atheists, rather than providing a solid argument.
 
Last edited:
Type this into google Ed:
“what percent of chimpanzee and human dna is identical”

You are going to immediately object that “we are so different”.

It doesn’t take a bunch of variation percentage-wise to provide uniqueness.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
The more we know the more the old paradigm is being left in the dust.
Click to expand...
Good to hear. Glark rejects this though - he says there’s an evo conspiracy that stops new findings being published if they threaten the “hold” of the old theories. :roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
No, actually it is now found to be around 70%. In any case a piano has 88 keys. So many songs can be played depending on the artist.
 
I would rather talk about the super program that is stored in the DNA.

…and what happens to it when a mutation breaks it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top