Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Your explanation can explain working genes. Loki/Trickster can explain why the working genes fall into a tree of inheritance, with closely related animals having closely related Cytochrome-Cs and distantly related animals having distantly related Cytochrome-Cs.

A competent designer cannot explain copied errors, an incompetent designer can explain copied errors. What is more, the repeated errors form exactly the same tree as the similarities in working genes like Cytochrome-C.

Your hypothesis requires non-human designer(s). The Tree of Life hypothesis requires inheritance with modification. We have repeatedly observed inheritance with modification. We have never observed any non-human designer(s).

Unless and until you have independent evidence of your proposed non-human designer(s) then science will use inheritance with modification.

rossum
 
It didn’t come from anywhere, it was always there. God wasn’t created and had no beginning.
People in glass houses…

You ask me to explain the origin of information and you just say, “Poof, it was always there.” That is hardly convincing or fair. You have no explanation for the origin of information, yet you implicitly criticise evolution for not explaining the origin of information.

This is a major issue for Intelligent Design and similar creationist explanations for the origin of information; they have to assume it rather than explain it.

rossum
 
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?
A living pegasus for example. A pegasus can be designed: humans designed it. However, it cannot evolve because it has characteristics of two different well-separated clades: avian wings attached to a mammalian body.

Alternatively an organism appearing well before any of its ancestors: Haldane’s Precambrian rabbit for example.

Either of these would be impossible for evolution. So far neither has been found.

rossum
 
Those statements are false.

"5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

"6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.

“7. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man’s life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas.”

Humani Generis

“Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. And this union of man and woman, that it might answer more fittingly to the infinite wise counsels of God, even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties - deeply sealed, as it were, and signed upon it-namely, unity and perpetuity. From the Gospel we see clearly that this doctrine was declared and openly confirmed by the divine authority of Jesus Christ.”

Arcanum
 
Glark9h1 the_universal
the_universal:
As someone with a background in natural sciences,
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 …

I believe you’ve taken my statement out of context. For me personally, the science and faith are happily reconciled. I believe in evolution and I believe in God. I have no issue with the Church position that we are descended from a common person. For me the story of Adam and Eve is a story more about free will than about trying to line up evolution to events of the Bible.
 
Last edited:
The evolution of species is a well established scientific fact, and that includes primates. The Catholic Church accepts the role of science in searching for answers to our physical origins. Popes say so. So if you want to be Catholic, the legitimate role of scientific endeavor, including evolution, is part and parcel of being Catholic. Unless you want to be more Catholic than the Popes…

When mis-used as an anti-God ideology, no, evolution is not true. In that sense it is no more true than religion that is ignorant of scientific realities
*There is no excuse for ignorance. It would be better to be silent than to spew ignorance, because ignorance scandalizes when it masquerades as religious truth. *
 
Last edited:
40.png
the_universal:
As someone with a background in natural sciences,
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 …
I find it uplifting that despite evolution being known via science (I think we agree there BTW) there are still a billion+ Catholics in the world and many more Christians. Sure, some fundamentalists dispute it, but somehow many many millions have reconciled the two when applied to evolutionary biology. I’m not so sure that little old me informing readers of the wonderful uses of applied science would do much good there.
 
There is no practical scientific use for evolution. Biology can only study things that are alive today. Nothing’s been reconciled.

"In the book, [Pope] Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."
 
The evolutionist then has blind faith. Everything comes from nothing.

Christianity has a solid foundation of evidence and reason. It occupies the higher ground.
 
Science has to be properly reasoned and we know it is not always that.

Several times they sent up satellites because they found direction in the universe and it pointed to earth. With each satellite the evidence made a stronger case. Science is provisional and a good idea to wait awhile before pronouncing it.
 
Last edited:
Science has to be properly reasoned and we know it is not always that.

Several times they sent up satellites because they found direction in the universe and it pointed to earth. With each satellite the evidence made a stronger case. Science is provisional and a good idea to wait awhile before pronouncing it.
What are you talking about with the bolded phrase?
 
Last edited:
Christianity has the fullness of the truth. It can look at science and add the missing information about who human beings really are. That information helps to guide each of as we travel through life to our final end.
 
Science has to be properly reasoned and we know it is not always that.

Several times they sent up satellites because they found direction in the universe and it pointed to earth. With each satellite the evidence made a stronger case. Science is provisional and a good idea to wait awhile before pronouncing it.
I bolded a phrase in your quote. Can you elaborate on this phrase please? What are you referring to specifically
 
Christianity has the fullness of the truth. It can look at science and add the missing information about who human beings really are. That information helps to guide each of as we travel through life to our final end.
Right. The Church speaks about the soul and it’s origin in God, and the origin of all creation in God. The Church does not seek to add missing pieces of scientific information.
The Church speaks about the why ad the who, not the scientific how.
 
Oh - What Is Evil About The Axis Of Evil? | The Principle

and

NASA’s COBE (1989), WMAP (2001) and PLANCK (2009) satellites were initially sent out to find proof of evidence of the Big Bang by measuring the cosmic microwave background (CMB) as a uniform energy fallout across space (isotropic energy dispersal). But the satellite probes showed the map of the universe was not a uniform dispersal of stars in chaos but had galaxies aligned in seven known concentric circles each 250 million light years apart along the axis of the Earth and across its equator. Copernican principles would remark that the Earth’s Milky Way is just one among many random galaxies, one that may be at the corner of the known universe as previously believed. But the data map of universe show that the Earth and the Milky Way as factually depicted- are really located at the center of the known universe. Planck Satellite Data Confirm: Earth May Be the Center of Universe! » Reach Unlimited
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top