Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not. How do you know HGT had to evolve slowly? Have a source for me on this one?
 
Rau said:
Whether that is to be understood literally as a direct creation from dust one moment to adult male the next - or as something different, matters not one jot. It would matter if science were able to discover the answer to be “direct”. It would cause a greater focus on the Bible. Some feel that without such literalness, faith evaporates, as people emulate the doubting Thomas.
Click to expand...
God could have used evolution, but there is not the slightest hint in the Scriptures that He did. Funny that. The Scriptures suggest the exact opposite of evolution - instantaneous creation.
 
rossum said:
Having a working design in the pterosaur wing, why did any proposed designer switch to a different design for birds and yet another different design for bats? Design proponent often claim that reuse of the same ideas shows design. Here is an example where the same ideas were not reused. On the same basis is that to be taken as evidence against design?
Click to expand...
I wonder which law says God has to stick to one design for flight.
 
The so-called evidence for evolution is presented by a bunch of atheists (mostly) who view everything from their belief that all life on earth evolved from microbes. I don’t know what “evidence” there really is for evolution, because I don’t trust scientists to describe reality objectively.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
God could have used evolution, but there is not the slightest hint in the Scriptures that He did. Funny that. The Scriptures suggest the exact opposite of evolution - instantaneous creation.
Click to expand...
Curiously, God is said to have labored for several days. Funny that. But understandable by simple man.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If you do convince someone that evolution is incompatible with faith, then they are forced to either accept evolution and deny their faith, or accept the faith and deny evolution.
Click to expand...
God tests everyone. When the Church finally comes to her senses and infallibly declares that evolution is incompatible with the faith, there is going to be a lot of testing and soul-searching going on.
 
Last edited:
Careful. After Cardinal Schoenborn’s Op-Ed in the New York Times about evolution, a letter of warning was issued. “If the Church comes down on the wrong side of evolution…” I don’t know. The planet explodes? Scientists huff and puff?
 
buffalo said:
If we agree it is adaptation, then there is no more to argue. If you are using this to make a case for macro-evolution, let’s continue.
Click to expand...
The building blocks of the macro changes are the micro ones. Macro requires much more than 20 years, and even natural selection, genetic drift etc.
buffalo said:
There were no examples of an adaptive mutation in Lenski’s experiment that showed a gain of a new molecular function.
Click to expand...
Where in the study did you see this? When I read the study, it was clear that
  1. There was a gain-of-function phenotype, and no way to interpret or spin that in any other way.
  2. A new species with a new gene and new information on the old DNA evolved cit+ E. coli
 
Metis1 said:
What we see happening all around us today are changes, including changes in life forms such as bacterium and viruses.
Click to expand...
Bacteria “evolving” into more bacteria is evidence that microbes evolved into humans? Stasis is evolution - sorry, I’m not intelligent enuf to comprehend that principle.
 
So your suggestion is that we should read genesis like a science book? Funny, the Catholic authority doesn’t agree with you.
 
Glark said:
When the Church finally comes to her senses and infallibly declares that evolution is incompatible with the faith
Click to expand...
The Church is led by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit knows all things. If it were a human institution I would saw yes it could be in a state not in its senses, but this is Christ’s Church.

If it were God’s will, it probably would have already been condemned. Obviously God is bringing a greater good out of this by not declaring through his Church it is infallibly right or wrong.
 
"Vienna - EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was “more than just a hypothesis,” defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance – or at least acquiescence – of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.

"But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

“Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection – is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top