Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Glark said:
It’s not evidence? Then why is antibiotic resistance often cited as an example of “evolution in action” or “evolution in real time”? We are told that macroevolution can occur because microevolutions are observed - ie, billions of years of microevolutions can add up up to macroevolution … and antibiotic resistance is cited as an example of microevolution.
Click to expand...
Yes. Antibiotic resistance is an evolution in action. So what is the problem?
 
buffalo said:
A magician uses sleight of hand to deceive. God cannot be magician.
Click to expand...
Depends on the god. Loki/Trickster can certainly be a magician. As for the Abrahamic God, Theodosius Dobzhansky says it far better than I can:
One of the early antievolutionists, P. H. Gosse, published a book entitled Omphalos (“the Navel”). The gist of this amazing book is that Adam, though he had no mother, was created with a navel, and that fossils were placed by the Creator where we find them now - a deliberate act on His part, to give the appearance of great antiquity and geologic upheaveals. It is easy to see the fatal flaw in all such notions. They are blasphemies, accusing God of absurd deceitfulness. This is as revolting as it is uncalled for.

Source: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.
Click to expand...
rossum
 
rossum said:
40.png
Aloysium:
Darwinism is not science; It is opinion repeated over and over and over again to the point that people cannot see what is in front of them.
Click to expand...
If you accept microevolution then you are accepting the basic elements of Darwin’s theory: variation and natural selection. Since we can easily observe microevolution, then we can observe the evolution is science.

rossum
Click to expand...
Calling it “microevolution” sounds sort of like a trick to get “evolution’s” foot in the door. But, I don’t think so; the term likely arose as a way of describing what obviously goes on in nature, by believers in the story of evolution who perceive everything in accordance with that framework.

Simply stated microevolution means that something that cannot do what it is supposed to do, does not do what it is supposed to do. In this case that something is to develop, grow, and reproduce within its environment.

Reproduction involves the use of genetic material in the making of a new creature. The organising principle that utilizes the code, I see as being the creature itself, a whole being from its conception to its death, in the case of plants and animals. That whole, brought into existence by God, is composed of parts (organ systems, cells, molecules, and the subatomic) which participate in its being, contributing their specific qualities to its structure, physiology and behaviour. These are part of the physical world, interacting with, influencing and being influenced by the totality of that level of being. While living forms utilize their environment to maintain and reproduce themselves, that environment can also cause harm. It can cause mutations to the genetic code. Rarely, if ever, are mutations positive, making it easier for the organism to survive. Such is the case with Sickle Cell Anemia and Thalessemia, which provide a mixed blessing of a disorder which protects from malaria. Or with the flounder, which lives on the ocean floor:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Perhaps the term microevolution is more often misapplied to changes in offspring that are not related to mutations, but rather the expression of dormant genes, seen especially when different breeds of animal mate:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Sometimes a feral appearance arises in a litter of puppies. Not surprisingly, the camouflage it provides would allow the animal to survive without human contact, which would usually be lethal for such creatures.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Darwinism is not science. It utilizes science to justify its mythos.
 
Last edited:
As a theory for the origin of life?

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: The evidence is so firmly against it that the likilihood of it being true is miniscule.
 
Last edited:
If one is walking down the beach and sees left footprints in the sand as far as he can see, should he conclude a deceiver is at work?
 
The problem arises in communicating to another that one sees footprints, where they see only sand. A deceiver in that case would be masking the footprints that are actually there. The “true” light according to that other person is that which reveals there to be no footprints. That “truth” repeatedly stated, becomes entrenched, so much so that one would not bother to look and see whether or not the footprints exist. It is taken for granted that they do not exist and that those who assert they are there, believe in a reality that is deceptive.
 
Last edited:
ChunkMonk said:
As a theory for the origin of life?

Short answer: No.
Click to expand...
Correct. Darwin called his book “On the Origin of Species”, not “On the Origin of Life”. Evolution explains the origin of the many species we see today that have developed from the original life on Earth.

The origin of life is a separate study called Abiogenesis. That has a different set of mechanisms, with a heavier emphasis on chemistry, than evolution.

rossum
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
But abiogenesis is not one of the basic elements of evolution…right ?
Click to expand...
Correct. Evolution starts very shortly after abiogenesis, when the initial just-about-alive protocell has reproduced and there is a population of non-identical proto-cells.

rossum
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
But abiogenesis is not one of the basic elements of evolution…right ?
Click to expand...
Correct. Evolution starts very shortly after abiogenesis, when the initial just-about-alive protocell has reproduced and there is a population of non-identical proto-cells.

rossum
Click to expand...
That’s like counting to Ten, but starting at 2.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
We have evidence for the Tree of Life, such as Cytochrome-C sequences. Where is your evidence for Jack and the Beanstalk?
Click to expand...
There is a creation explanation for this: The Creator uses Cytochrome-C to perform the same function in the cells of many different creatures. A carpenter can use the same sort of nails when building lots of diiferent things Common Creator, not common descent.
 
the_universal said:
As someone with a background in natural sciences,
Click to expand...
In that case, you should be able to inform readers of all the wonderful uses applied science has found for the theory/conclusion that all life on earth has evolved from microbes. The most important discovery in all of science would surely offer mankind innumerable practical benefits …
Some people seem to get uncomfortable that a theory such as Darwin’s can’t be fully reconciled with Genesis. But from what I know, the Church is clear that Genesis is not to be read as a literal text or as science.
Click to expand...
Catholics are free to interpret Genesis literally and believe in a literal six days of creation - dispite what the misleading and erroneous information in the Catechism would have us believe and the pro-evolution stance of many Catholics in high places.

The Church has somehow decided that the Scriptures allow Adam to have evolved from a pre-existing creature - how Genesis 2:7 can be possibly be interpreted that way is a complete mystery. And then the Church finds nothing silly about a theology that says it took billions of years of evolution for Adam to appear, but then God created Eve in an instant! To make matters even more pathetic and bizarre, the “science” that has produced this stupid theology turns out to be a dubious, untestable theory about what supposedly transpired billions of years ago. I smell a rat.
 
Last edited:
Brittany said:
I accept Darwin’s theory of evolution. I don’t think it conflicts with Christianity like many other Christians (mostly Fundamentalists) seem to. I don’t know for an absolute fact that it is true, because I know that there have been many times in the past when science has corrected itself, and this could possibly be one of those times, however unlikely it may be. I will accept whichever theory has more valid evidence. If a literal 6-day creation or a different theory of evolution arises with more believable evidence than Darwin’s theory, I’ll accept that.
Click to expand...
The (Christian) Scriptures say Adam was created from inanimate matter. How does that fit in with your belief that Adam evolved from a creature that was already alive?

And how do account for this (Christian) Scripture: “But from the beginning of creation, God created them male and female” (Mark 10:6), which says humans were present at the beginning of creation? This contradicts your belief in theistic evolution, which says humans weren’t present at the beginning of creation, but appeared billions of years after creation.

Then there’s “The works of the Lord have existed from the beginning by his creation” - Sirach 16:26. Human beings are surely one of the “works of the Lord”, so how can it be that they “existed from the beginning” of creation? That clearly contradicts your evolution.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Personal opinions do not count for much in science. Data does. Do you have any data to show us?
Click to expand...
What form of “data” would make you sense that it is the handiwork of a Creator God? If you can’t answer that question, how will you recognise that “data” if it comes along?
 
Brittany said:
And until I see such evidence, I’ll believe Darwin’s theory. I don’t think it’s important anyways. What really matters to me is faith and morals, not science.
Click to expand...
For more than a few Christians of weak faith, Darwinism has convinced them that “science” has proven the Bible to be wrong and therefore untrustworthy. Since the Bible is untrustworthy, Christianity is untrustworthy, and they lose their faith. Then there are people who don’t consider Christianity in the first place because “science” has proven its so-called Holy Bible to be wrong. Therein lies the only “use” of the theory that all life on earth evolved from microbes - to undermine the authority of the Bible and so destroy faith.
 
Aloysium said:
I can’t grasp how intelligent people can consider that mere happenstance is a sufficient explanation as to how there would have once been dirt, followed by microbes, then bugs and plants, and now us, sitting here at our computers.
Click to expand...
It’s maybe easier to understand when you realize that evolution from simple to complex life-forms is an inevitable doctrine of atheism. If there is no God and therefore no divine Creator, there is no other “feasible” alternative explanation for how life on earth came to be. The “necessity” of abiogenesis and then evolution overrides their respective absurdities.

Theistic evolution is not nearly as absurd, because at least it offers a cause and a means (although theistic evolution presents big problems scripturally-speaking).
Pantheism makes more sense than evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...
Well, they’re both superstitions, but evolution is “scientific” superstition - which makes it more acceptable to the modern mind.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top