Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest211 said:
Regarding point 7. Please stop bothering Catholics here. Just a suggestion.
Click to expand...
How does “Evolution is pure science” bother Catholics? You are descending into unintelligibility and it now sounds like you are just trying to shut down the conversation.

Talk about taking things personally. Get a grip please.
 
Last edited:
John 5:46

New International Version
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

New Living Translation
If you really believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me.

English Standard Version
For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.
 
So, this is your reasoning?

I said “Evolution is pure science”.
That claim does or “should” bother Catholics somehow.
Bothering Catholics is wrong.
Therefore, no one should say “evolution is pure science” because otherwise they are bothering Catholics.
 
edwest211 said:
John 5:46

New International Version

If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

New Living Translation

If you really believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me.

English Standard Version

For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.
Click to expand...
And that is relevant how? God have mercy on you.
 
timothyvail said:
Wow, you judge the Catechism as being wrong, are you inspired by the Holy Spirit and given Authority from Christ? This smacks of a strong Protestant ethos.
Click to expand...
Do you agree with the Catechism’s claims that the untestable theory that humans evolved from microbes over billions of years is
  1. Fact
  2. “unerring knowledge” like that which God taught to Solomon - i.e., infallible knowledge?
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
Do you agree with the Catechism’s claim that the untestable theory that humans evolved from microbes over billions of years is

Fact
“unerring knowledge” like that which God taught to Solomon - i.e., infallible knowledge?
Click to expand...
Where does the Catechism claim that? Source please.
 
If you are done here, just go to another thread, no need to bother me.
 
edwest211 said:
As I wrote, nothing will stop you. Please continue.
Click to expand...
You contradict yourself.

Why are you trying to shut down dialogue? Even the Church hasn’t come to a conclusion on this important topic. Stop forbidding what even the Church does not forbid.
 
anon65111186 said:
Where does the Catechism claim that? Source please
Click to expand...
#283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.”

To describe the “scientific studies” of “the origins … of man” (evolution) as “knowledge” and “discoveries” is to claim them as facts. The words, “appearance of man” (evolution of man) are presented as if is a fact. To claims that these so-impled facts are on a par with the “unerring knowledge” taught by God to Solomon is to claim that such “facts” are infallibly correct.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
To describe the “scientific studies” of “the origins … of man” (evolution) as “knowledge” and “discoveries” is to claim them as facts. The words, “appearance of man” (evolution of man) are presented as if is a fact. To claims that these so-impled facts are on a par with the “unerring knowledge” taught by God to Solomon is to claim that such “facts” are infallibly correct.
Click to expand...
To clarify we have two things at play
  1. Fact (Data)
  2. Scientific Theory
Data as fact is confirmed so strongly that it would be perverse to not give assent.

Theory is a very well substantiated explanation of those facts.

In the case of evolution, there are very strong facts in play, such as from the fossil and DNA record. Anyone who denies these facts has simply no legitimate reason to do so.

Evolution is validated by the facts, the facts line up with the theory, they support one another.

Evolution just happens to be very well supported by facts.

Now, science is not dogmatic and set in stone
  1. something could be discovered which throws off the theory, or
  2. a better theory may explain the facts better
 
Last edited:
The next paragraph, 284, continues in the same vein: "The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin … "

“knowing … when man appeared”? To know when man (supposedly) evolved is to claim it as fact.
 
Glark said:
“knowing … when man appeared”? To know when man (supposedly) evolved is to claim it as fact.
Click to expand...
We know by carbon dating how old bones are, so yes, we know when man appeared, or at least at what date he definitely existed.
 
Last edited:
Your God of evolution must be a sadist - billions of years of suffering and misery and death under evolution could have been avoided with a snap of his fingers - ie, instantaneous creation
 
Such dating contradicts the Bible, so it cannot be factual. The Catschism has it back-to-front - it is not science that knows when Adam appeared, it is Scripture - the history of life described by God himself.

Besides, the dating methods used by science is hardly precise - ie, hardly factual.

And what specimen of “human” remains did science test? It was probably those of an ape!
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
Your God of evolution must be a sadist - billions of years of suffering and misery and death under evolution could have been avoided with a snap of his fingers - ie, instantaneous creation
Click to expand...
To be honest by that standard Christ on the Cross and Holocaust could have been “snap” gone, no more suffering.
 
Glark said:
Such dating contradicts the Bible, so it cannot be factual.
Click to expand...
Does the Hebrew writers intend to give an account of mathematical years? As far as I understood there is no date or time period for the Garden of Eden in our deposit of the faith.
 
There was a near-complete early American human skeleton with an intact cranium and preserved DNA.

The remains were found surrounded by a variety of extinct animals more than 40 meters (130 feet) below sea level in Hoyo Negro.

It was dated 13,000 years old.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top