Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ender said:
First, this is not an argument I’m making; I was simply pointing out that this is a common - and I think fairly strong - argument that is commonly made whenever this topic arises.
Click to expand...
It’s only seems strong because of a misunderstanding of what it means for God to be a creator. The cause of the problem is faulty theology, God-the-builder, being presented as the be all and end all truth in regards to the natural world. We learn time and time again that the popular theological interpretation of creation is in error or contradicts scientific discovery. Some people take this as evidence that Christianity is a false religion and others take this as evidence that science is evil and the scientific community is conspiring to undermine Christianity. The people who hold these views are in agreement to the extent that they both think its one or the other. The truth is, the God-the-builder theology that is being touted as genuine Christian truth is a straw-man to begin with; and the belief that Christianity is at odds with any scientific knowledge as presented today is a red herring.

Its not a lack of evidence that causes people to qeustion the theory of evolution. Its fear that makes people qeustion it. Its an irrational fear that only serves to damage the credibility of Christianity.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
i have showed with science papers and links showing anti-biotic resistance does not “evolve”.
Click to expand...
There was only one paper and that one simply says that some bacteria were resistant. It is not a scientific study on all bacteria and their evolution from non-resistant to resistant. It also does not explain how mutations add genetic information to the genome.

Though it was resistant to 14 antibiotics, there are literally hundreds of different kinds of antibiotics.
 
buffalo said:
It is not repeatable. One time events are not repeated.

That is the achilles’ heel of evolution, the extrapolation. Even one time adaptations are not repeatable.
Click to expand...
It is not the event that is repeatable, but the process. That is repeatable.
These are not apples to apples. Living organisms and the information are way to complex to try this comparison.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the radium example? It is an example of extrapolating from what we observe. The fact that life is complex does not mean we cannot extrapolate observed patterns of development, especially when that pattern has been observed over and over and over again.
 
Fear. Always fear. That’s not credible, especially since we’re on round two of this. Irrational.
 
Its round two and people are repeating the same things. I see no credible “scientific reason” to reject the theory of evolution. So i can only assume that your primary reasons for doing so is for theological reasons.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Its round two and people are repeating the same things. I see no credible “scientific reason” to reject the theory of evolution. So i can only assume that your primary reasons for doing so is for theological reasons.
Click to expand...
The problem with rejecting it is there is no definitive absolute decision from Church or Science about the theory, everyone rejecting it is jumping to conclusions before even Mother Church has decided to reject the theory outright and completely.

The Church rejects certain aspects of philosophy that have sprung up around the theory, some have nothing to do per se with evolution but merely support those theories, such as atheism, which has been around before science.

A lot of Catholics reject evolution thinking they are rejecting atheism, but they are misguided and actually contrary to the scientific spirit of Catholicism.
 
Scientific knowledge is constantly growing and changing, and scientists in whatever field especially those who are on the cutting edge tend to disagree with one another, it’s not wrong to be at odds with current scientific knowledge. That said, if one is writing an essay or exam, one had better have a clear idea of what the professor wants. This is as true in the physical sciences as it is in political science.
 
Aloysium said:
Scientific knowledge is constantly growing and changing, and scientists in whatever field especially those who are on the cutting edge tend to disagree with one another, it’s not wrong to be at odds with current scientific knowledge.
Click to expand...
Its true that scientific knowledge is growing and developing. But science does not change because of emotions or beliefs, and neither will the scientific method. So someone had better come up with a natural explanation that better explains the current data; otherwise the theory of evolution won’t change. Intelligent design isn’t cutting it.
 
anon65111186 said:
A lot of Catholics reject evolution thinking they are rejecting atheism, but they are misguided and actually contrary to the scientific spirit of Catholicism
Click to expand...
89% percent of people who make such statements, especially those who quote statistics, are making it up. 😉

Actually, the mythos of Evolution is so deeply ingrained in the culture that it is my impression that the vast majority believe it to be true and that those who don’t are some sort of home-schooled, inbred country bumpkin.

Speaking in general, take it from just another internet idiot, it is important to read what concerns people have about anything, in this case the theory. Sort out if what you read makes sense. Where it may not, besides opening oneself to another viewpoint, it is important to ask oneself what beliefs might be behind the resistance to its acceptance. This should be an exercise in thinking for oneself. Praying for guidance and insight really helps,although it can be a difficult journey.
 
Techno2000 said:
We report a screen of a sample of the culturable microbiome of Lechuguilla Cave, New Mexico, in a region of the cave that has been isolated for over 4 million years. We report that, like surface microbes, these bacteria were highly resistant to antibiotics; some strains were resistant to 14 different commercially available antibiotics.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that. It is yet another confirmation of the results of the Luria-Delbrück experiment, first done in 1943. Random mutations are random. Some of those random mutations start off as neutral, but become beneficial when the environment changes.

Your sources are misinforming you if they think this is a problem for evolution. Random mutations are just doing what random mutations do: random things. Some of those random things turn out to be beneficial in future.

rossum
 
🤢

I think i may have seen every relevant video and article on the subject of intelligent design. It just didn’t work for me.
 
Last edited:
No, but He might be hiding in some of Quantum Mechanics. Google double-slit experiments and especially “quantum erasers” for signs that the Universe is interacting with us in a very positive sense.
 
Interesting. Most of what I’ve read about that approach has been here and it has helped me clarify quite a number of issues.
 
Aloysium said:
Interesting. Most of what I’ve read about that approach has been here and it has helped me clarify quite a number of issues.
Click to expand...
Such as? Can you give me one argument that at the very least makes intelligent design a legitimate scientific theory or even a hypothesis and not just a host of unsupported assumptions and misunderstandings?
 
Last edited:
Science itself is making the modern synthesis obsolete. No need for religion.
 
Look back through the posts. There are several papers and more in the literature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top