Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmmm- it seemed to be OK when posters derided believers for their faith. Just sayin…
 
That biological evidence does support creation, as do the red shift and background microwave radiation in physics. It does not support Darwinism, which must go through convolutions of logic to explain it away.
 
And then when confronted with “where did it all come from” the atheist escape route is the multiverse construct which can never be observed. Blind Faith?

My faith is based on reason,. logic and evidence. It is surely not blind.
 
buffalo said:
And then when confronted with “where did it all come from” the atheist escape route is the multiverse construct which can never be observed. Blind Faith?

My faith is based on reason,. logic and evidence. It is surely not blind.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, there are fake universes too. And one where niceatheist is not an atheist. 😀

There is also one with a God. It is actually hilarious when one thinks through the implications. Yet, they have to believe despite the absurdity.

Side by side = God or multiverse?
 
The redshift may be wrong according to an astronomer who worked with Edwin Hubble who described the effect but who also admitted it may also turn out to be something else. The cosmic background radiation implies the universe is flat. I think a bit more study needs to be done with both.
 
You’re just a bad mood because your boys got flogged in the first Test. By the time we destroy the Poms 5-0, you will be impossible to reason with on any level. 😉
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
A Rhesus monkey has one amino acid difference from the human/chimp version.
Click to expand...
Sounds suspiciously like another misleading half-truth that serves nicely as Darwinist “common descent” propaganda.
 
I’m nowhere near smart enough to figure out how evolution produced same-sex marriage.
 
PickyPicky said:
It’s not presented as “a proof”. It is one of many predictions tested and found to be valid. Many, many predictions.
Click to expand...
Charles Darwin complained that the fossil record didn’t reveal what his theory predicts - innumerable transitionals showing fine graduations of evolution. in other words, the fossil record doesn’t support the most basic prediction of Darwinism.
 
Aloysium said:
I believe that they were moulded by the word of God in various ways. Some that I come up with is through their dreams. As we might imagine a lover, whom we eventually find because we have not settled for less, God guided birds to become peacocks. Just like when we think, we are changing the polarity of neuronal action potentials and releasing neurotransmitters into synapses, God as a universal mind may guide His creation, in addition to providing its infinite forms of being, possessing their particular nature.
Click to expand...
God moulds the forms of animals through there dreams? Wow.
Aloysium said:
You may wish to clarify what you mean when you use the term mutation. As it is commonly understood in science, it means change purely resulting from material influences
Click to expand...
Material influences. Physical reality was created by God. I expect it to act according to the nature it was given. Thus i have no problem with the idea off material influences being the immediate cause of particular biological changes…I’m not a pagan, i believe that physical things act and develop according to their nature and not according to some form of supernatural determinism. Neither do i feel the need to create ad-hoc supernatural explanations when we can see that things act according to their nature.

I think science has got this one right. We see that micro evolution naturally occurs, and so its not controversial to think that macro evolution would be an incremental result; the genetic mechanism exists for this to occur. It explains why animal forms have changed over millions of years.

The theory of evolution is not going to be a problem unless one is dedicated to some form of supernatural determinism.
Aloysium said:
That all this diversity came about as a random material phenomenon, with no final cause?
Click to expand...
I fail to see why random would mean that a thing has no final cause.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Wow.
Click to expand...
Totally, absolutely, AMAZING!!

We’re it not for sin, the entire universe in all its beauty, wonder and diversity runs on love.

All the sin within and around us does not diminish the glory of God. In Christ it reveals the depth of His infinite love for us.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
i believe that physical things act and develop according to their nature and not according to some form of supernatural determinism.
Click to expand...
IWantGod said:
I fail to see why random would mean that a thing has no final cause.
Click to expand...
The latter statement is a bit confusing and sounds like a contradiction in that a final cause would impose a structure on events that would only appear random, but are not. That structure imposed on physical things is not self-generated but rather comes from a source that is “super” their “nature”. So your first statement here appears to contradict the second.

I am not sure what you believe, and I wouldn’t even hazard a guess. Do take into account that the Eucharist is the body and blood of our Saviour. It is physically speaking a collection of polysaccharides.

There exists a hierarchy of being in the universe. We are a collection of various material substances united under one spirit as a person. This unity, which we are, acts, perceives, thinks, feels, and carries out all the metabolic processes necessary for life. Each part is individual, yet comes together as one. A photon exists as a particle in itself or becomes a wave in an electromagnetic beam of light. We are individual beings on the Way to becoming Love itself, united in one Beatific Vision within eternity.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
I think science has got this one right. We see that micro evolution naturally occurs, and so its not controversial to think that macro evolution would be an incremental result; the genetic mechanism exists for this to occur. It explains why animal forms have changed over millions of years.
Click to expand...
Science has certain things right. Modern biology is a joke if taken beyond its scope, at least this is the case where Darwinism is concerned.

Do have a look at Buffalo’s post above, quoting Nature Reviews Genetics. You will see that “microevolution” has been found to occur with the deletion of genetic material. It is far more complex than vague ideas concerning “mutations”. Clearly, unless the first organism contained all the genetic material for any eventual variation in offspring, macroevolution would not be an incremental result. This might be the case in the creation of Adam. Darwinism would have a hard time explaining how that could occur spontaneously, randomly, but no doubt it would try, or ignore as it does revealed truth.

There’s more to all this than you imagine.
 
Last edited:
Certainly didn’t improve my mood, you’re right. So, 5-0, eh? Now there’s a prediction we can test! 😧😧
 
Aloysium said:
Clearly, unless the first organism contained all the genetic material for any eventual variation in offspring, macroevolution would not be an incremental result.
Click to expand...
I don’t see what you are getting at here. What do you mean by all the genetic material? I’m not sure you fully grasp what natural evolution is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top