Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aloysium said:
That the Theory of evolution is nonsense is proven every time the X-ray technician leaves the room to turn the switch rather than staying in order to have smarter and stronger kids.
Click to expand...
Yeah, “proven nonsense”. How can those scientists be so dumb as to fail to notice the vast majority of mutations are harmful. Oh wait, they all say that, don’t they. :roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
40.png
Rau:
40.png
Aloysium:
Multicellular organisms which followed are similarly a new creation,
Click to expand...
By what process?
Click to expand...
The Word of God brought them into existence.
Click to expand...
Using what process?
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
40.png
goout:
So my stubby-legged, fat, Northern European butt lying in a blanket is just the way I am supposed to be.
Click to expand...
The way you are “supposed to be?” What does that mean? It may be the way you are. It may well serve you well.
Click to expand...
You know, it’s the way God made me. It’s good. I embrace my stubby legged fat butt Northern European bald body blanket wearing self.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It is funny how you can write so much true by irrelevant stuff, and then follow it up with a concluding sentence that absolutely does not follow from anything you previously wrote.
Click to expand...
As to irrelevant true stuff reaching a conclusion that does not follow, how about:

Lactose intolerance which is present among different human populations.

Note that here we are constructing a story, using the same data as would evolutionary theory.

I understand that animals lose their capacity to digest milk as they mature from infancy. The gastrointestinal system of mammals tends to stop producing the enzyme that digests milk.

It is unnecessary as the animal begins to eat its normal diet. It would free the mother up, and therefore perhaps be beneficial to the species. At any rate, this diminishing capacity would not harm the creature, any more than losing my hair has impacted on me in my old age.

What would likely be happening for this to occur however is that the DNA that codes for the particular protein is turned off. Whether this is some form of temporally based action, turning off after so many goes at producing the protein, or the result of a feed back mechanism that requires the presence of galactose in the gut, or both, or something else, it happens not as a result of a mutation but as an integral part of how the cells in the lining of the small intestine work.

While some might argue that this sort of stuff happens in us because we are mammals who were transformed into human beings. Another might retort that this is like saying that a wooden chair became a wooden table, made of the same stuff with the same design, but altogether different creations. A materialist would be arguing that chairs and tables shape themselves.

But, I am not lactose intolerant, to the great relief of those close to me. Maybe there was a glitch and the shut-off mechanism got bunged up in some mutant forebear, who got through the winter drinking the milk of goats and cows. Maybe the turning off of lactase production was itself shut off through a number of other possible processes, or by the Designer Himself. It’s all a story.

I recall reading about an experiment where researchers bred dull mice to see what the impact of a stimulating environment would do for their cognitive abilities. The mice got smarter, but interestingly so did their unexposed offspring, which should have been equally dull.

The complexity of the systems that regulate cellular reproduction and function, let alone the production of offspring, suggest design over happenstance chemical reactions. More so in that the production of milk in adults was mirrored by that of lactase in infants in the beginning, to then be tweaked one way and the other.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Why bring up only select quotes?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/finding-design-in-nature.html
Click to expand...
I post a quote from JP2’s address to Pontifical academy of the sciences, you post one from the NY times, and then you accuse me of doing selective quotes.
Good one Ed.

Will you comment on St John Paul 2’s words? I posted a link to his whole talk.
Oh yeah, he also wrote a book called “Fides et Ratio”. on the relationship between faith and reason. Very edifying.
 
Probably no different than that which will bring about our resurrection.
 
A very good reply. No, I don’t “believe that the overwhelming number of scientists who specialize in this area are so ignorant, dishonest, or both…” They were young and naive and now specialize in whatever aspect of Biology they want to specialize in. Their teachers told them evolution was true and they accepted it, but “evolution” as explained here, has not helped them - at all. Not in any practical way.
 
That is the correct answer. Various natural - non-God - chemical reactions just happened a certain way and you get life whether you want it or not.
 
Aloysium said:
Probably no different than that which will bring about our resurrection.
Click to expand...
Such confusion.

It’s a good thing those who found aspirin, gasoline, electricity, etc… didn’t practice hopeless fideism.
 
Last edited:
Any failure would be in reaching a mutual understanding. The topic is quite clear.
 
What I got from one of Buffalo’s post was that it is possible, probable actually, that what we witness is devolution. From an initial perfection, mutations do occur and they would result in an ongoing deterioration of the genome. As we all age, so too would humanity. There appears to be something else at work (aka God) maintaining us, each person coming into existence a new creation albeit an expression of a fallen humanity and thereby prone to sickness and death.
 
Last edited:
It is an adaptation that occurs as a result of our cellular make up. It fits with the idea of creation. It does not prove evolution any more than it proves creation, yet evolution is said to be fact. The problem with evolution is that it does not explain what it says it does. There is no way random chemical reactions resulted in the reality of story-telling, mathematics, music and such gifts bestowed on humanity. We are not descended from, or another type of ape.
 
Aloysium said:
Any failure would be in reaching a mutual understanding. The topic is quite clear.
Click to expand...
You answered direct questions as to the material processes in question with a shrug of the shoulders and a default to fideism (which is anathema for a Catholic by the way).
You then equivocated those questions with the resurrection, as if It was subject to the same kind of scientific inquiry.

Let me restate my response to this kind of confusion:
It’s a good thing the discoverers of aspirin, anesthetics, electricity, nuclear energy, etc…didn’t engage in hopeless fideism.
 
Last edited:
The creation of mankind is equally not the subject of science as long as it fails to identify the reality of the person. All we are doing is analyzing bones and genes based on a reductionistic vision of life. The raw data exists, the big problem has to do with how it is put together as a story that sees our ancestry in the chaos of material interactions and an animal nature which is only superficially understood.

However we were made, and I do have a personal preference which I have discussed but would prefer not to revisit, it does not matter. What is important is that it be consistent with the teachings of the Church - one first man, monogenesis and original sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top