Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PickyPicky said:
That’s if by “the Church has calculated” you mean the Church of Ireland and the Church of England. Archbishop Ussher and Dr Lightfoot were both Anglican priests and distinguished scholars, Ussher particularly so. But this was the 17th Century. And they were applying historical method based on the understanding of the time. Today science is used to supply a more solid basis for dating events in the distant past.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not what I mean at all. The Catholic Church came up with its own independent figure.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
The vast majority of the Fathers believed in a literal six days of creation. Augustine was a noted exception and was open to the possibility of different interpretations, but he himself favoured creation in an instant, which doesn’t leave much room for billions of years of evolution.
Click to expand...
Whether Augustine or the Church Fathers favored six day creation as a scientific truth is irrelevant since that idea never made it into the infallible deposit of faith. Therefore the faithful are free do disbelieve it.
 
We are pretty close…

Yes, the adaptation ability is present in short neck animals. The question is whether it gets switched on or not. Random variation is narrow, and does not permit macro-evolution.
 
Glark said:
40.png
anon65111186:
Data as fact is confirmed so strongly that it would be perverse to not give assent.
Click to expand...
Your Gould-esque rhetoric doesn’t impress me.
Now, science is not dogmatic and set in stone … something could be discovered which throws off the theory, or a better theory may explain the facts better
Click to expand...
So, do you think the Catechism is correct when it implies that the untestable theory that man evolved from microbes over billions of years is fact and infallible knowledge?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t imply that, so your argument is a straw man.
 
All 88 key pianos look pretty close. Each one can play thousands of unique tunes.
 
buffalo said:
We are pretty close…

Yes, the adaptation ability is present in short neck animals. The question is whether it gets switched on or not. Random variation is narrow, and does not permit macro-evolution.
Click to expand...
No. We are not close at all. Evolution says macro-evolution and variation within a species are the same thing. The distinction between them is artificial. They differ only in degree. It is like saying I believe it is possible to walk across the street, but I don’t believe it is possible to walk from Maine to California.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
buffalo:
We can move this to another thread. Galileo was wrong. Heliocentrism is wrong. There are two left. Acentrism and geocentrism. The irony of acentrism is we can make the earth the center if we wish.
Click to expand...
No. Geocentrism was wrong because it is not an inertial frame of reference. Heliocentrism was right because it is an inertial frame of reference. Acentrism is not a theory but is a made-up philosophical concept for the purpose of legitimizing the failed theory of geocentism.
Click to expand...
What is acentrism?

With any “centrist” theory, what we do is place a rational mind at the centre if any phenomenon. We see the sun and the earth and their relationship through the imagined eyes of the sun. If we place ourselves that the presumed black hole at the centre of the milky way, the earth moves as a spiral with the sun’s path as the centre of the trajectory.

The best answer here of course is that which describes the relationship between the earth along with the other planets and the sun. As long as that’s all we are interested in, it works. It’s a puzzle how the earth and the sun are supposed to know that they are there to attract one another, so we imagine the idea of a warp in spacetime. This conforms with observations that light bends and the idea that everywhere is the centre of the universe, but there are issues as far as quantum physics is concerned.

At any rate, the centre of all time and space around which the entire universe exists, happened somewhere in the Middle East about 2017 years ago.
 
An evolutionary formed holy spirit would not be reliable truth teller for truth is not important to the process. Survival is.
 
I see adaptation and macro-evolution as two different things. One is preservative, the other creative.

What I meant - you [“An evolutionary biologist who is also a Christian could say the say thing - that God, through His marvelous creation, “front loaded” all the possibilities of living things through the way in which He established the laws of nature. This was all done for God’s marvelous purpose, so nothing that comes to be was not already existing in the mind of God before the world was formed.”]

Yes, the laws of nature are fundamental to His creation. They are intelligible because they were set forth by an intelligence. Same thing with His life forms.

St Augustine would agree. His “prime matter” points to this.
 
Last edited:
Catholicwife32 said:
The theory can be applied to make predictions
Click to expand...
Darwin himself complained that the fossil record failed to support his theory’s most fundamental prediction - gradualism. This was later confirmed by Gould and Eldredge, who then invented Punctuated Equilibrium to explain away the glaring discrepancy. Normally in science, if a theory’s most fundamental prediction fails miserably, that theory is deemed suspect. But since evolution isn’t actually about science, there is no need for its proponents to adhere to the norms of science.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
40.png
Catholicwife32:
The theory can be applied to make predictions
Click to expand...
Darwin himself complained that the fossil record failed to support his theory’s most fundamental prediction - gradualism. This was later confirmed by Gould and Eldredge, who then invented Punctuated Equilibrium to explain away the glaring discrepancy.
Click to expand...
All three of them had access to an inadequate fossil record. There is no need to explain anything away. We haven’t found all the intermediate fossils because we just haven’t found them. Nothing mysterious about that. So “strange” mechanism needs to be invented.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top