Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve been watching threads like this for years and bit by bit, the evidence shows that no God/gods were involved in a process called evolution. Further, my question - What practical scientific purpose does evolution provide today? has never been answered. And I see the same comments over and over: ‘Are you really Catholic?’ What does that have to do with the theory? And the more recent: ‘You must be infected with the Protestant Virus,’ or mentally unstable and so on.

My conclusion: These types of threads will recycle indefinitely. The goal? Full acceptance. Until full acceptance is achieved, threads like this will keep appearing as they have in the past.

If anyone stopped believing in evolution it would not affect their life at all.
 
Last edited:
And will in the future have to acknowledge that was a mistake. But, it will still persist for while.
 
anon65111186 said:
Again with your Greco-Latin interpretation, too bad the “you are dust” verse, after he is clearly animate matter doesn’t mesh with your literal interpretation.
Click to expand...
Taken out of context, “you are dust” is meaningless, since humans are the opposite of inanimate matter. However, when God told Adam, “you are dust and to dust you will return”, he was saying Adam was made from inanimate matter and that is where he will “RETURN”. If Adam was the offspring of a living creature, he could not “RETURN” to inanimate matter because he NEVER WAS inanimate matter.

Plus, God warned Adam that if he ate the forbidden fruit, he would die that same day. Upon discovering that Adam had eaten the forbidden fruit, God cursed him and said “you are dust” , meaning you are inanimate matter - ie, you are dead. This has two meanings - 1. although physcally alive, Adam was now spiritually dead, 2. Adam’s ultimate fate will be physical death (as when someone says, “you are toast”).

Not that any of this will matter to you, because my experience of theistic evolutionists is they don’t care what Scripture says. Any “inconvenient” verses can be dismissed with a wave of the wand of allegory. Their penchant for junk science is matched only by their penchant for junk theology.
 
edwest211 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I could write the same thing, but with “anti-science” in place of “anti-God.” I especially agree with your first sentence. Intelligent Design theory really doesn’t have anything to do with science.
 
edwest211 said:
I’ve been watching threads like this for years and bit by bit, the evidence shows that no God/gods were involved in a process called evolution.
Click to expand...
Why should God be cited when discussing the process of evolution? We don’t cite God when we discuss other scientific theories, like thermodynamics, electromagnetics, nuclear physics, chemistry, and gravity.
Further, my question - What practical scientific purpose does evolution provide today?
Click to expand...
Basic scientific research does not always start with a practical purpose in mind. But for evolution, the question has been answered and you just rejected the answer.
 
Glark said:
40.png
anon65111186:
Again with your Greco-Latin interpretation, too bad the “you are dust” verse, after he is clearly animate matter doesn’t mesh with your literal interpretation.
Click to expand...
Taken out of context, “you are dust” is meaningless, since humans are the opposite of inanimate matter. However, when God told Adam, “you are dust and to dust you will return”, he was saying Adam was made from inanimate matter…
Click to expand...
That is your interpretation. You can’t insist that everyone interpret Genesis the way you do.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That is your interpretation. You can’t insist that everyone interpret Genesis the way you do.
Click to expand...
What a surprise - another evo-Catholic denying the clear meaning of Scripture!

Please explain how Adam could “return” to inanimate matter if he never was inanimate matter?

And please tell me how Genesis 3:23 can be reconciled with Adam being the offspring of a living creature - “Therefore the Lord God sent him (Adam) forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.”
 
Last edited:
anon65111186 said:
Wow, are you sure you are Catholic? You sound like a fundamentalist Protestant in all your comments.
Click to expand...
The “one world religion” antics of JP II certainly gave Protestants plenty of ammunition to use against the Catholic Church. And who could blame them?
 
Last edited:
Of those three, only Kenneth Miller is a biologist. He certainly endorses evolution, but I can’t find any info that says he is an evolutionary biologist.
 
Last edited:
Again, I’m seeing the same pattern repeated over and over. Unanswered questions ignored to keep the non-conversation going. It is obviously “one way only.” Enjoy the ride. To my fellow Catholics, be warned. Science is not a god.

By the way, I love real science and follow it almost daily. This specific topic is useless to scientists and the average person. Scientists have no need to consult the Bible or the Church about this topic, but others are very insistent that Catholics believe textbook evolution is 100% true. You don’t NEED to believe that. But they have to bother us here as if it was a job
 
Kenneth Miller is not credible. He wants things both ways. Evolution that works by itself, and God, which is not a scientific factor at all. So, he sees two realities. Here, only the biology textbook matters. The God concept is meaningless, unless you want to believe it. That’s OK. As if we need anyone’s permission.
 
Glark said:
40.png
anon65111186:
Wow, are you sure you are Catholic? You sound like a fundamentalist Protestant in all your comments.
Click to expand...
The “one world religion” antics of JP II certainly gave Protestants plenty of ammunition to use against the Catholic Church. And whom could blame them?
Click to expand...
This new Pope will give them the whole kitchen sink if he tries to change the Our Father prayer.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Kenneth Miller is not credible. He wants things both ways. Evolution that works by itself, and God, which is not a scientific factor at all. So, he sees two realities.
Click to expand...
Is any theistic evolutionist credible? Theistic evolution is a mixture of two religions - Christianity and Scientism. It’s not authenitic Catholicism.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
The “one world religion” antics of JP II certainly gave Protestants plenty of ammunition to use against the Catholic Church. And who could blame them?
Click to expand...
For all the misunderstandings, they might have some superficial points, but his emphasis was on synthesis, bringing people together and forgiving the past. That’s why he asked the world for forgiveness for all the bad Catholics have done to people in the past 2000 years.

He was a towering philosopher, have you read his Theology of the Body, it’s great reading.
 
It is not just spiritual but it manifests itself in books and on the internet. The work of the evo believers is never done.
 
edwest211 said:
To my fellow Catholics, be warned. Science is not a god.
Click to expand...
Correct, no Catholic here endorses such a belief that as far as I can see, so straw man if that is directed at anyone taking the evolution position.
edwest211 said:
By the way, I love real science and follow it almost daily.
Click to expand...
Good for you, but don’t take offense if me or others on this thread are supremely surprised by that statement.
edwest211 said:
others are very insistent that Catholics believe textbook evolution is 100% true
Click to expand...
Some may insist as such, others like me insist it is the best explanation out there, and there is nothing incompatible with our faith, so long as you follow the Churches admonitions against polygenism etc.
edwest211 said:
You don’t NEED to believe that.
Click to expand...
I agree, no one has to believe in evolution, it’s not a requirement to be either a scientist or a Catholic. It is reasonable however to hold that it may be true, because the jury is still out on whether it is incontrovertibly true or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top