Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no other cause than chemicals which gave rise to organic, biological robots. That’s it. Nothing further. The “laws” involved are all you need.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. The teleological argument by Aquinas is a sufficient rebuttal to this line of reasoning. Nature cannot cause its own nature and thus neither can it be the ontological cuase of goal direction. From a materialistic standpoint teleology would just exist for no reason as a brute fact. Its unintelligible.
 
Last edited:
The earlier fish without the appendage were able to survive. As evidence for this we see other fish without the appendage. However these appendage-less fish stay in the higher levels. The fish that had the appendage could go deeper and explore new feeding grounds, where some of them thrived.
 
You haven’t been reading up on Evolutionary Psychology? You haven’t heard the molecules to man argument? What does Thomas Aquinas have to do with science?

The proper understanding of this cannot be “By Science Alone.” That is where the disconnect occurs and certain facts are left out. Jesus Christ was born as a man, not another type of being. He was True God and True Man. See 1Corinthians 15:45. Jesus, like Adam, had not sinned. Adam and Eve, however, did sin and lost their gifts from God, including bodily immortality. Jesus is the standard true man, not fallen like the rest of us and who rose from the dead after His sacrifice for us, bodily.

Keep talking science. That’s all some want to do. But leaving God out of the equation is not acceptable to the Church.
 
Leaving God out of the science class room is acceptable, because when we do science we are looking for natural causes, not ontological causes…
 
And these fish just happened to have or find food that was edible, without knowing anything?
 
I don’t know.

This is part of the problem with evolutionary science. There’s too much of a tendency to “fill in the blanks” with some plausible narrative. For example, I could suppose that early beaver ancestors found that branches in a creek provided a little better protection from predators, and that some of them eventually learned to pull branches into place, and so on.

I’m not really interested in spinning that kind of yarn. But the thing that has to be understood is that small advantages in reproductive fitness can accumulate into large changes in traits or behaviors given enough time (really, enough generations).
 
This proves my point. The sacred science classroom. No, this is not acceptable. Science replaces God is the goal. That should be obvious to all reading. Atheism is the goal. Indoctrination is the goal. Science Alone - meaning Human Beings Alone - have gone beyond religion and replaced the Word of God with the more important, Word of Man. But science will not save your soul. It will not replace our fallen natures. It will end as we will all end, and then, the judgment.

Time to wake up folks.
 
That’s a great storytelling element but without evidence, it is only speculation.
 
That’s right. That’s exactly what I’m saying.

There’s no animal trait for which you cannot spin a similar yarn, which means that in general, the evolutionary theory isn’t really disprovable-- not because those narratives are right, necessarily, but because you’ll never have enough evidence to support or refute many of them.
 
No, I think the idea is more like giraffes. You start (in theory) with something like a deer or horse which eats leaves. Those which can reach higher leaves will have access to more food. This means that they will have the best chance to survive, while the shortest pre-giraffes will be more likely to starve and fail to reproduce. So you end up with pre-giraffes with increasingly longer necks.

It’s not like the giraffes are standing around for millions of years gazing lustfully at the delicious tops of trees, and then suddenly a single long-neck mutation came to save the day.
 
edwest211 said:
This proves my point. The sacred science classroom. No, this is not acceptable.
Click to expand...
You feel uncomfortable with any epistemological method that doesn’t cite God as the be all and end all of the subject matter. But that is not a sufficient reason for God to be mentioned in the context. of natural science. The qeustion of God’s existence and his role in creation is a qeustion for philosophy and theology. That is the proper context for inquiring about God.
edwest211 said:
Science replaces God is the goal.
Click to expand...
That is the Goal of metaphysical naturalists. They too are doing philosophy. You have been hoodwinked like many others into thinking that they are doing science.

We cannot reclaim science by turning it into philosophy. Let science do science and philosophy do philosophy. We do not need a scientific proof of God.
 
Last edited:
Not disprovable? So, just keep on making up more plausible stories? That’s not science but science-fiction.

I write plausible stories. It’s not that hard once you know how, but I mark them as fiction to let the reader know, like a movie which is fiction but seemed so plausible, like the Terminator. "Yeah, I thought, “we could build that.” The designers added sophisticated details to add to that kind of thinking. From an engineering standpoint, it looked entirely functional but it wasn’t in real life.
 
Keep it up. My points still stand. I’m not interested in adding God to the science classroom, but here, it is vital to our understanding of who we really are. Science is leaving out crucial truths. And yes, I know why.
 
I agree. A really good evolutionary scientist will be very cautious about selling that kind of narrative. You need a lot of “it seems” and “perhaps,” and careful study of an animal’s ecosystem.

That being said, at some point you have enough evidence that you can draw some useful inferences. For example, if you see the progression from pre-humans to humans, with bigger and bigger cranial cavities, it’s not unreasonable to assume that intelligence has been a big factor in our development and success as a species.
 
Why don’t we have increasingly longer necks? Everybody knows that reaching the apples toward the top of the tree is a good thing. Another story - no evidence.
 
I’m not talking about actual giraffe evolution. I’m giving an example of how small advantages and incremental changes can lead to big changes in an animal’s physical traits. I do not know how long it took for pre-giraffes to adapt to that degree.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top