Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Forget what those in authority say. How do you reconcile random mutation as a source of deformity and cancer in pretty much all case and it’s being touted as the source of the diversity which natural selection is said to weed in order to create ever more complex life forms? At what point does mathematics and story-telling enter into the picture and how exactly does that happen?
 
??? Hello… The authority were the uniformatarianists. He bucked them and they recently vindicated him and accept catastrophism.
 
Hmmmm - most of the inventions were done by Catholics and many of those were monks or priests.
 
"When James Shapiro released his landmark book Evolution: A View from the 21st Century, you couldn’t help but wonder if he would actually get away with it.
Could an active scientist publicly announce that the Neo-Darwinian emperor has no clothes, and not get fitted with a pair of cement shoes?

Would his career at the University of Chicago be over?

Shapiro did not bring a knife to a gunfight. He brought a machine gun – and a bulletproof vest packed with munitions.

Backed by 1100 references and a sterling track record, including close association with Nobel Prize winner Barbara McClintock and his own discovery that bacteria engineer their own DNA, his book made it clear:
It’s time to turn evolutionary theory upside down and inside out."

Evolution Vs. Creationism Debate | Cosmic Fingerprints – 30 Nov 162

Royal Society’s “New Trends in Biological Evolution" - A Bloodless Revolution
Now the genie is out of the bottle.
 
Last edited:
If one has faith the universe is designed and intelligible they can do science.
 
buffalo said:
??? Hello… The authority were the uniformatarianists. He bucked them and they recently vindicated him and accept catastrophism.
Click to expand...
Then…this “landmark” result you are touting is just over the irregular rate of evolution? Then who is it who says an irregular rate of evolution is proof that evolution (which does not specify anything how the rate will appear in the fossil record) is wrong? But it is apparent that you have conceded that authorities matter, because right here you are citing them (whenever it is convenient) in saying that they “accept” catastrophism, but not accepting those same authorities when they still say evolution is true. You still need to decide once and for all if authorities matter.

Another problem is the vague use of ambiguous terms like “catastrophism.” This one single word is too vague to encapsulate your argument, for if someone challenges catastrophism you can point to any minuscule variation in the rate of evolutionary change as evidence that it is true. But then, once the weakest interpretation of catastrophism is accepted, you can then claim the strongest interpretation of it to “prove” that evolution is false because evolution does not change everything in one generation.

What you fail to consider is that the fossil record may show a somewhat irregular rate of evolutionary change just because of the incompleteness of the fossil record. So a change that might have taken a million years to come about can look catastrophic because we many of the intermediate generations did not leave enough fossils to show that each generational change was very small. There are a number of possible scenarios that can explain that aspect of the fossil record. Until you can rule them all out, the evidence you cite does not contradict evolution.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure you understand what I was getting to.

The authorities of science ostracized Bretz because of the evidence he was presenting that undermined their current view,

Uniformatism was a strong argument for long ages and therefore the age of the fossils. With catastrophism the evo defenders have to take this into account.
 
Aloysium said:
Forget what those in authority say. How do you reconcile random mutation as a source of deformity and cancer in pretty much all case and it’s being touted as the source of the diversity which natural selection is said to weed in order to create ever more complex life forms? At what point does mathematics and story-telling enter into the picture and how exactly does that happen?
Click to expand...
Should you or I demonstrate expertise greater than those expert in the field, I will need to seriously consider ignoring those other experts. That’s what’s necessary if the balance of probabilities belongs to the greater weight of expertise operating honestly. The issue you identify is obvious, and hardly overlooked. And as I have repeatedly stated, all that can be claimed about the randomness of “random mutation” is that it is (at this point in time) indistinguishable from random to us. If you wish to craft a scientific theory that God directs such events, that’s fine, and I will only shrug my shoulders, for I surely cannot know if that is true, and there is no evidence. But equally surely, your theory will no longer be science. [I have said this to you before.]
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
If one has faith the universe is designed and intelligible they can do science.
Click to expand...
Well, as a person of some Faith, I hardly think God said “Big Bang” and then decided to see what eventuated. The question is not about did God create, but what processes can we observe delivering the “evolving” creation.
 
Last edited:
He is all about dissing believers. Perhaps you could quote how he addresses catastrophism.
 
Metis1 said:
No, because we appear to have come from tree-dwellers originally, so the early human finds, such as “Lucy”, do have proportionally longer arms than what we see with our later forms.
Click to expand...
Humans with arms longer than their legs? LOL!! It’s absolutely amazing what nonsense evolutionists are prepared to swallow.
 
Last edited:
To support their belief in common ancestry, evolutionists love to point out that humans share 98.9% of their DNA with chimps (“See how closely related we are?”). But this misleading fact insults even the intelligence of the village idiot, who can see that there are massive differences between a human and a chimp.
 
Last edited:
Metis1 said:
Not only has he said that there’s evidence for evolution, this also is mentioned in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”.
Click to expand...
The CCC presents microbe-man evolution as a fact, which is erroneuos and misleading.
Growing up in a fundamentalist Protestant church, the first time I ran across a Christian who accepted evolution was from a Catholic priest, plus when doing my undergrad work I took two classes on Catholic theology, and that Jesuit professor covered that as well with the position being that there was no conflict as long as it’s understood that God was behind it all
Click to expand...
What a sad indictment on the current corrupt state of the Catholic Church. Many influential Catholics have swallowed the poison of evolution hook, line and sinker. These deceived evo-Catholics then lead other unwitting victims into the same error - the blind leading the blind. And it’s interesting that you should mention a Jesuit - the Jesuits are the most corrupt order in the Church.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top