Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

[edwest211]

But… but… it’s Grandad.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Do I believe in evolution? Yes, somewhat. Now, do I Believe In Darwin’s theory of evolution? No, because Darwin was a well-known racist.

 

[PickyPicky]

Nonsense. (16 chars)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

rossum:

Some random mutations, though not all of them, would help you survive in that environment: increased lung capacity, increased frequency of breathing, tweaks to the number of of red blood cells, tweaks to haemoglobin. All of those can help compensate for the relative lack of oxygen at high altitude.

If I needed to survive NOW in that high altitude when I needed to the most… evolution and random mutations would fail me. No animal has time to wait around for evolution to help them survive.

It does not make sense to expect that evolution would be a mechanism to help an individual organism (like you) to survive in a new environment (up high in the mountains). Darwin doesn’t claim it does that. Evolutionary biologists of today don’t claim it. The fact that evolution doesn’t do what you ask of it is not a point against it. Evolution also doesn’t help you find a parking spot downtown during rush hour. So what?

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

rossum:

Some random mutations, though not all of them, would help you survive in that environment: increased lung capacity, increased frequency of breathing, tweaks to the number of of red blood cells, tweaks to haemoglobin. All of those can help compensate for the relative lack of oxygen at high altitude.

If I needed to survive NOW in that high altitude when I needed to the most… evolution and random mutations would fail me. No animal has time to wait around for evolution to help them survive.

It does not make sense to expect that evolution would be a mechanism to help an individual organism (like you) to survive in a new environment (up high in the mountains). Darwin doesn’t claim it does that. Evolutionary biologists of today don’t claim it. The fact that evolution doesn’t do what you ask of it is not a point against it. Evolution also doesn’t help you find a parking spot downtown during rush hour. So what?

Techno2000:

Can you give me an example of evolution jumping into action to provide the necessary adaptations for an animal to use for its survival in a new environment. Please be specific if you can.

Yes. High-altitude adaptation in humans - Wikipedia

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Techno2000:

Can you give me an example of evolution jumping into action to provide the necessary adaptations for an animal to use for its survival in a new environment. Please be specific if you can.

Yes. High-altitude adaptation in humans - Wikipedia

rossum

This is a misunderstanding between you and rossum. You were asking how evolution occurring today could immediately help an individual animal and rossum was giving you an example on how evolution in the past could benefit an animal now. Get over it.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Techno2000:

Can you give me an example of evolution jumping into action to provide the necessary adaptations for an animal to use for its survival in a new environment. Please be specific if you can.

Yes. High-altitude adaptation in humans - Wikipedia

rossum

This is a misunderstanding between you and rossum. You were asking how evolution occurring today could immediately help an individual animal and rossum was giving you an example on how evolution in the past could benefit an animal now. Get over it.

The link said evolution could do all that, which I didn’t believe anyhow. And I wanted a specific example of any animal at any time in history evolution changed to adapt to a new environment… can you give me some examples… please be specific if you can.

 

[Glark]

You are arguing with the Catechism, just to point out. I hope you know that.

It says scholars and research can say to God, paraphrasing “God, you gave me unerring knowledge of what is, how things work, because you who are Wisdom, created all things and taught me through wisdom”

Which is saying, if we know something, we know it because God taught us.

That’s my point: An untestable theory about the “origins of man” that involves billions of years is not “knowledge” and doesn’t belong in the category of “discoveries”. Knowledge and discoveries are facts - a useless, unverifiable theory/conclusion is neither a fact nor knowledge nor a discovery.

Furthermore, #283 presents “the appearance of man” (ie, evolution), not as a theory but as a fact. But It isn’t a fact and it never will be.

The Catechism doesn’t narrow down what the “splendid scientific studies” are, just that they enrich our knowledge and invite us to greater admiration of God.

Nonsense. Paragraph 283 refers to “the origins …of man” that have “been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of … the appearance of man.” This is quite obviously referring to the scientific study of the evolution of man - Darwinism, in other words.

The following paragraph - 284 - continues in the same vein:

"284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin … "

It claims that “these (scientific) studies” have resulted in us “knowing when … man appeared” - ie, science let’s us know that man evolved and we know when he evolved. This is simply not true - to know something is to claim it as fact - but no one’s knows for a fact that man even evolved, let alone when he evolved!

The theological purpose of evolution is to lead us to knowledge of God and His creation, and be in awe of Him. We are actually figuring out how God designed us and how we came to be.

Without “knowledge” of evolution we wouldn’t be in awe of God and His creation? And how odd that there is not the slightest hint of this so-called knowledge and theology in God’s Bible.

 

[Glark]

The scientific community is not a monolith, scientists as a whole don’t really conspire together to suggest things of all scientific data.

It comes down to a matter of trust. Do I trust scientists when t comes to origins science? No. Do I think Satan and his demons have the power and means to perpetrate a global hoax that involves science? Yes.

“And when the thousand years shall be finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go forth, and seduce the nations, which are over the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, and shall gather them together to battle, the number of whom is as the sands of the sea” Rev 20:7.

 

[anon65111186]

It comes down to a matter of trust. Do I trust scientists when t comes to origins science? No. Do I think Satan and his demons have the power and means to perpetrate a global hoax that involves science? Yes.

I can understand you not trusting scientists, in our popular culture the scientists always are potrayed as athiests, who question and doubt religion and it’s truth. This is not always so, look up how many Christian and Catholic scientists there are. Surely you would be inclined to trust them over athiests?

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater and demonizing anything having to do with evolution would be a mistake. As Catholics we must seek and find the truth in everything, even in terroritory atheists claim to be their own.

The thing is, atheists don’t own evolution and the data supporting it anymore than a Catholic.

 

[anon65111186]

Furthermore, #283 presents “the appearance of man” (ie, evolution), not as a theory but as a fact. But It isn’t a fact and it never will be.

There you go again, arguing that the Catechism is wrong and you are right. Talk about trust, why should I trust you over the Catechism? You are no authority, but the Catechism is.

 

[anon65111186]

The Catechism doesn’t narrow down what the “splendid scientific studies” are, just that they enrich our knowledge and invite us to greater admiration of God.

Nonsense. Paragraph 283 refers to “the origins …of man” that have “been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of … the appearance of man.” This is quite obviously referring to the scientific study of the evolution of man - Darwinism, in other words.

What I meant is the Catechism doesn’t say the word evolution or Darwinism, or which specific studies done by this or that scientist is a discovery or fact.

Do no discoveries or facts exist about the appearance of man and the origin of the universe?

 

[Glark]

What I meant is the Catechism doesn’t say the word evolution or Darwinism, or which specific studies done by this or that scientist is a discovery or fact.

Do no discoveries or facts exist about the appearance of man and the origin of the universe?

And the Bible doesn’t use the word, “Trinity”.

When paragraphs 283, 284 of the Catechism refer 'scientific studies" into “the origins … man” and “the development of life-forms and the appearance of man” and “when man appeared”, what do you think it is referring to, if not evolution?

 

[Glark]

No rush, but if you come across it I’d be grateful. It would be interesting to see how it deals with the gaps in the Biblical chronology.

Oh, you probably mean the imaginary gaps invented by Darwinists. Their penchant for distorting and abusing Scripture is legendary.

Incidentally, did you notice that your boys lost the second Test?

 

[Glark]

Evolutionary theory cannot be applied to anything. Biologists only deal with what’s alive today and the gaps in knowledge are growing. The pea plants weren’t evolving.

Darwinists like their word games. Antibiotic resistance is “evolution” and so is humans descending from an ape. They want us to think they are one and the same thing and that since one form of “evolution” is true, then the other form must also be true.

 

[Glark]

This is not always so, look up how many Christian and Catholic scientists there are. Surely you would be inclined to trust them over atheists?

I don’t trust any scientist who supports evolution.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater and demonizing anything having to do with evolution would be a mistake. As Catholics we must seek and find the truth in everything, even in terroritory atheists claim to be their own.

I accept the parts of evolution that can be demonstrated as factual (microevolution). I reject the stuff that can’t be demonstrated as factual (macroevolution).

The thing is, atheists don’t own evolution and the data supporting it anymore than a Catholic.

That’s true - because Satan owns it; he invented it and put it into the minds of men.

 

[Glark]

There you go again, arguing that the Catechism is wrong and you are right. Talk about trust, why should I trust you over the Catechism? You are no authority, but the Catechism is.

I don’t trust what the Church has become since Vat II. It’s spiritually corrupt in many respects - and hence intellectually corrupt in many respects. But Jesus promised that the “gates of hell will not prevail against it”, so the present darkness (or as Sister Lucy called it, “diabolical disorientation”) will be redressed in time. Support of the demonic hoax of evolution is part of that darkness.

Have you never heard of the Great Apostasy?

 

[anon65111186]

I haven’t heard of the great apostasy no, what’s that?

I don’t trust what the Church has become since Vat II. It’s spiritually corrupt in many respects

By chance, are you an SSPX / latin mass traditionalist who rejects Vatican II?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

edwest211:

Evolutionary theory cannot be applied to anything. Biologists only deal with what’s alive today and the gaps in knowledge are growing. The pea plants weren’t evolving.

Darwinists like their word games. Antibiotic resistance is “evolution” and so is humans descending from an ape. They want us to think they are one and the same thing and that since one form of “evolution” is true, then the other form must also be true.

They are two degrees of the same thing. I think it is anti-evolutionists who use word games like “adaptation” and “devolution” to make up artificial distinctions in the same process.

 

[buffalo]

Is this the same Wiki who deletes entries they do not like? Wiki is not trustworthy.