Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
Techno2000:
If I could see animals right now, with my own eyes, that are half one thing, and half another… I would believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
Click to expand...
Mammals are ground based, fish live and swim in the water and birds fly.

So you’d want to see some strange creature like a bird or a mammal that could swim better than some fish, or a bird that couldn’t fly. Or a mammal that could fly. Or a fish that could fly or could live out of the water and, I don’t know, climb trees.

Well, yeah, I guess anyone would believe in the theory if such mythical creatures existed.

By the way, is there a zoo near where you live?
Click to expand...
All I see now when I go to the zoo are complete whole animals with no signs of changing into anything new.
Click to expand...
Good grief…

You have zero idea of what you think you need to see because you have zero understanding of the subject, which you make abundantly clear in every single post.
 
Bradskii said:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
Techno2000:
If I could see animals right now, with my own eyes, that are half one thing, and half another… I would believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
Click to expand...
Mammals are ground based, fish live and swim in the water and birds fly.

So you’d want to see some strange creature like a bird or a mammal that could swim better than some fish, or a bird that couldn’t fly. Or a mammal that could fly. Or a fish that could fly or could live out of the water and, I don’t know, climb trees.

Well, yeah, I guess anyone would believe in the theory if such mythical creatures existed.

By the way, is there a zoo near where you live?
Click to expand...
All I see now when I go to the zoo are complete whole animals with no signs of changing into anything new.
Click to expand...
Good grief…

You have zero idea of what you think you need to see because you have zero understanding of the subject, which you make abundantly clear in every single post.
Click to expand...

Do you believe this is how it happen ?
 
buffalo said:
Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)

The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
Click to expand...
Not every statement by a pope is infallible. Not even every encyclical. They are only infallible when speaking “ex cathedra”. There is no binding obligation to believe the every event in Genesis happened as historical fact just as it was literally described. This view is further reinforced by statements from later popes which contradict these statements. If these statements were binding doctrine, no pope would every dream of contradicting it as it would be part of the deposit of faith.
All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
Click to expand...
What about those who did not write on the subject? We cannot assume a consensus based on a writings from just a few of the Church Fathers.
The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
Click to expand...
Please cite the exact context of this statement.
Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
(Pius XII, Humani Generis)
Click to expand...
If evolution were contrary to binding doctrine, Pius XII would not have written this. He would have written something to the effect that evolution must be discarded out of hand without considering any “pros”. This proves that evolution is not contrary to the deposit of faith.
Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.
Click to expand...
How could it have been allowed in 1950 if it was already declared entirely false much earlier? More evidence that it is our choice to believe it or not.
 
Last edited:
Please explain then.

All you’ve done is vent and insult the people you are talking to.
 
Last edited:
I know at least St Augustine thought that Genesis was showing the creation to the angels, and not a description of the creation account as it happened.
 
To be fair I don’t think hybrids who can reproduce is what is pictured by the phrase DarwinIan evolution.

By the way, are these species still in existence?
 
They were human beings to whom we now give that label. But we’ve defined them as a separate species so the species must be gone. Yet, human beings, are all over, many of them carrying some “Neanderthal” genes.
 
touché :roll_eyes:

Seriously, if your going to enter into the discussion, add to it.
 
I have read some creationists claim that Neanderthal were actually long-living humans, something about bone changes with age.
 
Last edited:
Kei said:
I have read some creationists claim that Neanderthal were actually long-living humans, something about bone changes with age.
Click to expand...
And apparently they couldn’t read or write a thing, because nobody knows nothing about them.
 
I’m not sure, as should be anyone reading the variety of opinions about the discovered remnants of those few individual lives.
 
Last edited:
Especially, if it freaks you out.
Bradskii said:
This kinda freaks me out. It’s like reading a bunch of second graders dismissing quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...
I can empathize. If you’ve got a copy of Origin of the Species on your table, you are pretty much a believer, perhaps to the point that you no longer recognize it as a faith in what is written. That world is reality and it’s going to be very hard to communicate to those living in a what would appear to be a comparative dreamworld of superstition.

Not feeling the same frustration, I will attempt a partial reply on his behalf.

Natural taxonomy has species as the primary category for grouping organisms with similar features and the capacity to procreate. Offspring are possible where the genetics of the parent organisms are compatable. Animals have preferences, and some different species can produce offspring, but will mate only in captivity, where the environment imposes limits on how they can express their instinctive drives. Conversely, some of the same species, like beagles and Irish setters, seem very unlikely to produce viable offspring. So, we see that the idea of species, is not clear cut and is a hotly debated topic in biology.

Modern science considers Homo sapiens to be a species. Most consider this category to be synonymous with what we otherwise refer to as human.

As part of the classification system that describes life, Homo sapiens is considered to be an offshoot of the branch that is the animal kingdom. Children, look at the picture; the proof is right there - We are animals.

Now, don’t go behaving like animals!
 
Last edited:
Kei said:
To be fair I don’t think hybrids who can reproduce is what is pictured by the phrase DarwinIan evolution.
Click to expand...
That’s moving the goalpost again. The challenge was to show that a new species emerged from earlier species. I have done it. Sure, those flowers look somewhat similar to their ancestors, but they are a different and viable species, not a sterile hybrid. If the challenge is to show visibly different forms, I offer the chihuahua and the mastif (but they are technically the same species.) If the challenge is to show a contemporary half-dog half-bird creature, I say that is an unreasonable (and silly) challenge.
By the way, are these species still in existence?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. I suppose so. They were discovered fairly recently and seemed to be dong quite well on their own in the wild.
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
Techno2000:
If I could see animals right now, with my own eyes, that are half one thing, and half another… I would believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
Click to expand...
Mammals are ground based, fish live and swim in the water and birds fly.

So you’d want to see some strange creature like a bird or a mammal that could swim better than some fish, or a bird that couldn’t fly. Or a mammal that could fly. Or a fish that could fly or could live out of the water and, I don’t know, climb trees.

Well, yeah, I guess anyone would believe in the theory if such mythical creatures existed.

By the way, is there a zoo near where you live?
Click to expand...
No, I mean a animal now that is in a transition of gradually morphing into a completely new species. An example would be a tadpole to frog scenario.One can observe every stage of its progress.All I see now when I go to the zoo are complete whole animals with no signs of changing into anything new.
Click to expand...
Your assumptions about what evolution looks like are too narrow. You assume that so-called “transitional” forms would have to look weird. In fact transitional forms are just as suited to their environment as the forms that preceded them, and not much different from the forms that they lead to. You are asking for something that looks weird, when no such thing needs to exist to have evolution.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
Techno2000:
If I could see animals right now, with my own eyes, that are half one thing, and half another… I would believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
Click to expand...
Mammals are ground based, fish live and swim in the water and birds fly.

So you’d want to see some strange creature like a bird or a mammal that could swim better than some fish, or a bird that couldn’t fly. Or a mammal that could fly. Or a fish that could fly or could live out of the water and, I don’t know, climb trees.

Well, yeah, I guess anyone would believe in the theory if such mythical creatures existed.

By the way, is there a zoo near where you live?
Click to expand...
No, I mean a animal now that is in a transition of gradually morphing into a completely new species. An example would be a tadpole to frog scenario.One can observe every stage of its progress.All I see now when I go to the zoo are complete whole animals with no signs of changing into anything new.
Click to expand...
Your assumptions about what evolution looks like are too narrow. You assume that so-called “transitional” forms would have to look weird. In fact transitional forms are just as suited to their environment as the forms that preceded them, and not much different from the forms that they lead to. You are asking for something that looks weird, when no such thing needs to exist to have evolution.
Click to expand...
So that means they should find even more fossils showing this.
 
I would have thought it obvious that God created the laws of nature given the fact that he created the natural world.; i never argued otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top