A
anon65111186
Guest
Explain yourself, I don’t know what you are referring to.
- Status
A
anon65111186
Guest
How is that different than evolution?
A
anon65111186
Guest
You know that all material beings are “made of dust/clay” that is what makes us related. The same elements that make up human bodies are the same in animals. Animals are also dust and to dust they shall return.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.” - Isaiah 55:8-9LeafByNiggle:
Billions of years of suffering, violence and death to produce creatures God could have created instantly. Does that make sense?
Think about that the next time you try to reason out an argument based on “why would God do such a thing?”
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
What is to prevent the faithful from such an interpretation?LeafByNiggle:
If the Genesis meaning IS figurative, how can the faithful believe in a literal interpretation, which the Church allows?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That is a straw man argument since you are not referring to the basic theory of evolution but to a distorted and unscientific version of it that some may have advanced to refute belief in God. Of course it is easier to attack a straw man than to attack the real theory, so I can understand your wanting to do it.anon65111186:
No, but It is perfectly rational for me to conclude that a pseudo-scientific theory that has hijacked the intellectual high ground of a civilization and leads many people to believe that there is no need for a divine Creator is a theory invented by demons.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
There are a lot of scientific claims that 99.9999% of the people believed that turned out to be wrong. Newtonian mechanics is a most recent example. No one in Newton’s day believed what we now know from Einstein’s Relativity. That’s the nature of science.anon65111186:
It would look just what 99.9999% of Catholics believed before Darwinism came along - the present creation was created in six days of 24-hours duration; Adam was created in an instant from inanimate matter; Eve was created in an instant from Adams’s rib.
A
anon65111186
Guest
Exactly, it is a classic straw man. Set up a position evolution doesn’t hold. Attack that position.
A
anon65111186
Guest
Right but the error in his claim is that 99.9 implies 100%, but in order to know 99% you have to know 100% of people and what they think.
Unless he has asked all 100% of Catholics and what they believe, nevermindyou all the Catholics in time before Darwin, then his claim of 99.9999% is pure fiction.
T
Techno2000
Guest
So the atheist thought they had it all figured out right from the start.All you needed was…random mutations, natural selection and survival of the fittest and you could explain the natural world. But Noooooo the Christians came along and hijacked this by throwing God in the mix and ruining it for the atheist. :crazy_face:
A
anon65111186
Guest
Throwing God into the mix wouldn’t be properly evolution. It’s like throwing God into the theory of gravity, it is not part of the definition, though obviously God designed it and is present in all objects that fall.
B
buffalo
Guest
No matter how we parse this, it would fall into the adaptation camp anyway.
R
rossum
Guest
Adaptation is evolution. It is a change in the genome of a population. That change may or may not result in speciation.
rossum
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
No one argues micro-evolution aka adaptation.
T
Techno2000
Guest
They extrapolate, extrapolate and extrapolate…
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Careful when quoting creationists; So what does Popper really say about evolution?
Indeed, the recent vogue of historicism might be regarded as merely part of the vogue of evolutionism—a philosophy that owes its influence largely to the somewhat sensational clash between a brilliant scientific hypothesis concerning the history of the various species of animals and plants on earth, and an older metaphysical theory which, incidentally, happened to be part of an established religious belief.
What we call the evolutionary hypothesis is an explanation of a host of biological and paleontological observations—for instance, of certain similarities between various species and genera—by the assumption of common ancestry of related forms.
. . . I see in modern Darwinism the most successful explanation of the relevant facts. [Popper, 1957, p. 106; emphasis added]
There exists no law of evolution, only the historical fact that plants and animals change, or more precisely, that they have changed. [Popper, 1963b, p. 340; emphasis added]
I have always been extremely interested in the theory of evolution and very ready to accept evolution as a fact. [Popper, 1976, p. 167; emphasis added]
The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. [Popper, 1978, p. 344; emphasis added]
E
edwest211
Guest
The more I see threads like this, the more confirmation I get that this topic has nothing to do with science. It’s about promoting an anti-God ideology.
G
Glark
Guest
Ever heard of ClimateGate? A couple of scientists fudged the figures to make it look like global warming was occuring. The moral of the story is, scientists are not always objective and not always honest.
G
Glark
Guest
Exactly. Why else would such importance be placed on a scientific theory that is not only untestable, but is completely useless in any applied sense.
I
IWantGod
Guest
You keep assuming that a scientific theory must have some “use” inorder to qualify as science. I don’t get it.?Edwests paranoia is completely bizarre and misplaced considering that the Catholic church is not against the theory of evolution and Catholic schools are teaching the theory of evolution.
- Status