Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dodge, why dodge? It’s just the truth. The problem is that the Genesis explanation starts with the birth of the universe, fair enough, while the evolution explanation doesn’t. I understand that makes the debate complicated when you want to discuss both, but there’s really no dodge involved. Evolution just describes what happened once life existed. If you want to argue that God made life exist, fine, but that simply isn’t an argument against evolution.
 
The claim is that micro-evolution extrapolated forward is macro evolution. Why not go backwards?
 
Last edited:
There’s no trajectory one way or the other. The organism responds to conditions of the environment. If a mutation produces an extra set of wings, those are not likely to be passed on because the organism is also responding to the amount of energy available to it for optimal fitness and likelihood to pass along its genes. It’s incredibly “fine tuned” isn’t it? 🙂
 
What a clever argument! Oh wait… That implication is entirely of your own making. I didn’t say evolution should be criticized because it was a religion. I merely said it was not scientific and was a religion. It should be criticized because it’s stupid and unlikely, like Hinduism. So the religion of evolution is a bad, sure. Not because it’s a religion, bur because it’s a false religion.

According to Aquinas, Sacred Scripture is a science, the highest science. So even presuming your silly assertion that “science is superior to religion” we can say that the Catholic faith, at least, is fine.
 
There are quotes around ‘reverse’ for a reason.

It means ‘sort of in reverse, in a way, if you see what we mean”.
 
Ah, Hinduism is stupid and unlikely. Great. Not sure that doesn’t break forum rules, but great. That’s one major world religion dealt with, then.
 
Last edited:
The eyes evolved - forward - evolution
The eyes disappeared - reverse - devolution
 
No. Any evolution is evolution. You are ascribing some sort of plus or minus ranking to changes. Evolution doesn’t care whether they are plus or minus. Natural selection simply judges their reproductive value at that point in time.
 
I wonder how long the prophets and righteous men like King David would last on this forum.

For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens.
Psalms 96:5
 
Last edited:
I wouldn’t want to join in the chorus of wicked men who judged him wrongly when God called him a man after His own heart. He sinned, he expressed greater contrition than most people ever will, recieved great punishment, and was forgiven. Otherwise, he was still God’s chosen.
 
My point is simple: evolution has no practical scientific application.
 
Even if that were true, it wouldn’t make evolution untrue of course.
 
And biomimicry can only use existing natural systems. Looking at the history of invention, natural systems were observed and imitated for centuries.
 
the_universal said:
There’s no trajectory one way or the other. The organism responds to conditions of the environment. If a mutation produces an extra set of wings, those are not likely to be passed on because the organism is also responding to the amount of energy available to it for optimal fitness and likelihood to pass along its genes. It’s incredibly “fine tuned” isn’t it? 🙂
Click to expand...
How does half of one organism and half another survive .
 
I’ve no intention of PMing you. What makes you think I would want to?

My type? Golly, what a charmer you are!
 
I can’t answer that; I don’t know what you’re referring to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top