A
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
anon65111186
Guest
A list of issues does not prove you understand evolution, it proves you have more interest in collecting information to combat something you know little about.Do you need a list of all the issues with evolution?
B
buffalo
Guest
DO the math. It works both ways, but they don’t tell you that do they? It is a worldview issue.
Study up on the axis of evil. I won’t for any further on this on this thread. It is its own thread.
Study up on the axis of evil. I won’t for any further on this on this thread. It is its own thread.
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
Okay, so now not only is evolution pure fantasy, but the planets don’t revolve around the sun.DO the math. It works both ways, but they don’t tell you that do they? It is a worldview issue.
Study up on the axis of evil. I won’t for any further on this on this thread. It is its own thread.
I want to laugh, but I am more amazed than anything, how in the world did you come to that conclusion, by which method of reasoning?
I can’t begin to imagine…
A
Aloysium
Guest
Sorry for being so cryptic.
Organic chemistry is a specialized area of chemistry that studies the structure and properties of compounds containing carbon. For the purposes of this discussion it was referring to substances such as sugars, fatty acids, proteins, DNA, RNA and other compounds that are important for the structure, functioning and behaviour of organisms. Organic chemistry is also important in the petroleum industry, plastics, soaps, perfumes,
As to the Tower of Babel. The higher we go, the more we see. Moses went up the Mountain and brought down the Ten Commandments. Jesus spoke from the Mountain and gave us the Beatitudes. We build virtual towers to get a comprehensive view of reality, but without God, it all falls to rubble, with no one knowing what the other is saying. Evolution is an excellent example.
As we develop, we organize perceptions into coherent experiences. The entire experience of daily life is structured in accordance to our interactions with the material universe and the people we encounter. Personally, our sense of self is a reflection of the feedback we receive within our relationships, especially our earliest ones. In terms of the physical world what we see reflects what we have been taught. I “see” Hubble images when I look into space; I can also see a blue dome over a blue sea, gazing out on the Mediterranean. Facts are moulded by the theories which identify them as events. It is difficult to see outside the box.
Organic chemistry is a specialized area of chemistry that studies the structure and properties of compounds containing carbon. For the purposes of this discussion it was referring to substances such as sugars, fatty acids, proteins, DNA, RNA and other compounds that are important for the structure, functioning and behaviour of organisms. Organic chemistry is also important in the petroleum industry, plastics, soaps, perfumes,
As to the Tower of Babel. The higher we go, the more we see. Moses went up the Mountain and brought down the Ten Commandments. Jesus spoke from the Mountain and gave us the Beatitudes. We build virtual towers to get a comprehensive view of reality, but without God, it all falls to rubble, with no one knowing what the other is saying. Evolution is an excellent example.
As we develop, we organize perceptions into coherent experiences. The entire experience of daily life is structured in accordance to our interactions with the material universe and the people we encounter. Personally, our sense of self is a reflection of the feedback we receive within our relationships, especially our earliest ones. In terms of the physical world what we see reflects what we have been taught. I “see” Hubble images when I look into space; I can also see a blue dome over a blue sea, gazing out on the Mediterranean. Facts are moulded by the theories which identify them as events. It is difficult to see outside the box.
B
buffalo
Guest
How about we take them one by one?
I will make the claim - you refute it.
I will make the claim - you refute it.
- Junk DNA has now been disproven and has function.
B
buffalo
Guest
Do you even understand what heliocentrism is? What Galileo claimed?
A
anon65111186
Guest
So, you are referring to non-coding DNA, Junk DNA isn’t a scientific term. 80% of the DNA is functional, but only 20% has relevant function. What is the problem?Junk DNA has now been disproven and has function.
B
buffalo
Guest
First off, the evo’s have used it for many years. They called it junk DNA. Take it up with them.
Their claim was this had no current function and an evolutionary leftover which proved evo to be true.
This proof for evolution is now gone. Do we agree? Yes or No
Their claim was this had no current function and an evolutionary leftover which proved evo to be true.
This proof for evolution is now gone. Do we agree? Yes or No
L
LateCatholic
Guest
Clearing up some misconceptions:
The Theory of Evolution is a theory, in that it makes predictions that can be verified. There has never been a single prediction made by the theory that has been refuted. It is one of the most successful theories in history. There ARE minor discrepancies that are resolved through REFINEMENT of the theory, but the basis has never been challenged.
Evolution is also a confirmed observation that occurs. This is not disputed.
Compare with Newton’s Theory of Gravity. No one says gravity doesn’t exist. We observe it every day. Also, Newton’s Theory of Gravity is accurate enough to fly men to the moon, calculate airplane routes, and pass high school physics. However, it has been REFINED by Einstein’s General Relativity. For example, Newton’s theory cannot account for slight discrepancies in the orbit of Mercury, or minor errors in GPS calculations. But Einstein’s theory is more accurate. This does not mean Newton’s theory is not USEFUL, nor incorrect. It is just inaccurate when given certain initial conditions.
In the same way, the Theory of Evolution undergoes REFINEMENTS and improvements. This is the scientific process. Evolution has NEVER been shown to be wrong, even once, despite thousands of attempts by scientists.
There is a big problem with Catholicism and Evolution that has not as yet been resolved, namely that evolution shows that Adam and Eve did not exist, and therefore there was no original sin, and thus no need for salvation. This is a huge problem for Christianity. This is the primary reason orthodox Christians refuse to acknowledge Evolution, even though it has been proven far beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Less orthodox Catholics are able to resolve this discrepancy through their faith, but in terms of Catechism, it completely subverts Christianity.
The Theory of Evolution is a theory, in that it makes predictions that can be verified. There has never been a single prediction made by the theory that has been refuted. It is one of the most successful theories in history. There ARE minor discrepancies that are resolved through REFINEMENT of the theory, but the basis has never been challenged.
Evolution is also a confirmed observation that occurs. This is not disputed.
Compare with Newton’s Theory of Gravity. No one says gravity doesn’t exist. We observe it every day. Also, Newton’s Theory of Gravity is accurate enough to fly men to the moon, calculate airplane routes, and pass high school physics. However, it has been REFINED by Einstein’s General Relativity. For example, Newton’s theory cannot account for slight discrepancies in the orbit of Mercury, or minor errors in GPS calculations. But Einstein’s theory is more accurate. This does not mean Newton’s theory is not USEFUL, nor incorrect. It is just inaccurate when given certain initial conditions.
In the same way, the Theory of Evolution undergoes REFINEMENTS and improvements. This is the scientific process. Evolution has NEVER been shown to be wrong, even once, despite thousands of attempts by scientists.
There is a big problem with Catholicism and Evolution that has not as yet been resolved, namely that evolution shows that Adam and Eve did not exist, and therefore there was no original sin, and thus no need for salvation. This is a huge problem for Christianity. This is the primary reason orthodox Christians refuse to acknowledge Evolution, even though it has been proven far beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Less orthodox Catholics are able to resolve this discrepancy through their faith, but in terms of Catechism, it completely subverts Christianity.
A
anon65111186
Guest
He was inspired by Copernicus, brilliant man, I’ve been to the Church where he is buried in Poland. He basically took Copernicus’s theories, which were never published, and added his own observations of Venus etc. He couldn’t prove anything satisfactorily at his time, but later on after we had the telescope and other tools we could confidently have enough evidence.Do you even understand what heliocentrism is? What Galileo claimed?
This was the claim of Galileo:
Celestial bodies do not all revolve around a single point
The center of Earth is the center of the lunar sphere—the orbit of the moon around Earth
All the spheres rotate around the Sun, which is near the center of the Universe
The distance between Earth and the Sun is an insignificant fraction of the distance from Earth and Sun to the stars, so parallax is not observed in the stars
The stars are immovable – their apparent daily motion is caused by the daily rotation of Earth
Earth is moved in a sphere around the Sun, causing the apparent annual migration of the Sun.
Earth has more than one motion
Earth’s orbital motion around the Sun causes the seeming reverse in direction of the motions of the planets
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
We have fragments, not complete proteins. And your evidence that it cannot last that long is? Personal opinion is insufficient.Sure, collagen lasts 65 million years.
You need to look at the half-life of collagen in a well preserved bone. Unless and until you have some evidence to show, I will go with the evidence to hand: Mary Schweitzer’s collagen fragments.
rossum
A
Aloysium
Guest
You are overstating the scientific basis for the Theory of Evolution if you are saying it is as valid as are the principles that govern the philosophy of science. What we have is a story into which we can fit the data. It must be remembered that what is considered data is already “processed”. The theory identifies it as data. There are other stories into which the raw data fits.It’s important to understand that scientific theories are as high on the certainty pole as you can get. They are higher than scientific facts because facts are simply those things which we accept our true for us to rely on the scientific method. They are philosophical principles over which the scientific method relies upon.
As such, evolutionary theory is an explanation for the observed realities of the world that the evidence backs up. Indeed, the theory can be applied to make predictions which result in more confirmations with more discoveries.
I don’t think those discoveries can be refuted. As such, reasonable Christians need to argue that God still fits into an equation beyond the theory. Denying the evidence is usually done out of ignorance.
It’s a pity that you do not think the truth, pretty awesome data way beyond any bones, as it is revealed in Genesis does not refute the Theory. The evidence is not truly evidence, but is rather a meaning imposed by a theory on the remnants on things long gone.
L
LateCatholic
Guest
The Theory of Evolution does not predict the efficiency of DNA, only that a coding mechanism that can transfer traits to progeny exists.
It is truly amazing that a hundred years after the prediction was made, we discovered DNA.
The validity of evolution cannot be questioned, and never has been by any rational person that understands the scientific process.
It is truly amazing that a hundred years after the prediction was made, we discovered DNA.
The validity of evolution cannot be questioned, and never has been by any rational person that understands the scientific process.
A
anon65111186
Guest
Who is “evo’s”? Scientists never called it junk DNA, only amateur scientists have. Right off the bat you have undermined your claimants.First off, the evo’s have used it for many years. They called it junk DNA. Take it up with them.
Their claim was this had no current function and an evolutionary leftover which proved evo to be true.
This proof for evolution is now gone. Do we agree? Yes or No
They could claim that the moon is made of cheese, but it wasn’t part and parcel of evolution.
Again, you further confirm you do not know the theory of evolution. You are however, expert at spurious counter-evolution claims.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Ok, hang in there as long as you can.
R
rossum
Guest
We can also observe radioactive decays in distant astronomical objects. A galaxy 48 million light years away will give information on the decay rates of some elements 48 million years ago.If you mean did someone from 48 billion years ago witness to the fact, they didn’t test it that way, but believe it or not we can actually use mathematical proofs based on the nature of currently existing elements to reliably tell us the half-life of elements.
That is, unless elements had a completely different nature millions of years ago and they suddenly changed their properties and chemical composition since then.
Where measured they do not differ from modern decay rates.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
In 1972 the late geneticist Susumu Ohno coined the term “junk DNA” to describe all noncoding sections of a genome, most of which consist of repeated segments scattered randomly throughout the genome.
A
Aloysium
Guest
I can force myself to “see” it, but it’s like looking at the world on a moonless night, where imaginings are almost as real as what is out there.Evolution is also a confirmed observation that occurs. This is not disputed.
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
Good for him, doesn’t change the nature of non-coding DNA and its role in the theory of evolution.The late geneticist Susumu Ohno coined the term “junk DNA”
- Status
- Not open for further replies.