Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is a mistake to apply quantum physics as a basis for comparing two different genetic codes.

But feel free.
 
vz71 said:
No never said invalid.

I said it cannot be a proof.
Click to expand...
Well, taking that as a standard. How can you prove that humans are related or “close” to one another? No two people have the same DNA?
 
anon65111186 said:
Well, taking that as a standard. How can you prove that humans are related or “close” to one another? No two people have the same DNA?
Click to expand...
I am not the one proposing that ‘closeness’ in DNA indicates proof that we came from some other animal.

I would however propose that a ‘close’ genetic code indicates we share characteristics with other creatures. It does not at all indicate an origin.
 
vz71 said:
I said it cannot be a proof.
Click to expand...
I suspect that you misunderstand the role of “proof” in science. Do you think that there was “proof” of Newton’s theory of gravity? If so you are wrong. It was never proved, it had a lot of supporting evidence, but never proof. Einstein’s theory had more supporting evidence, so it replaced Newton’s theory.

Science works on the weight of evidence, not on proof.

The weight of the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of a 13.5 billion year old universe, a 4.5 billion year old earth and all life on earth being related by common descent from an ancestor that lived about 4 billion years ago. There is no credible scientific evidence that supports the YEC hypothesis.

rossum
 
edwest211 said:
Exactly right. A point many are missing. Science will not get you to heaven.
Click to expand...
Will you get to heaven without submitting intellect to reason and truth?
Does science contribute anything whatever to the perceivable truth of creation?
If it does, and it concerns you so much, don’t you owe it to God and yourself to be educated on these matters?
 
The Bible speaks of this but people are persuaded that men, not God, have the final say. Science is way too broad a term. I submit to Church teaching not men.
 
buffalo said:
IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.
Click to expand...
Was every creature “kind” that has ever lived created in a literal 6x24 hour window?

Was that window several thousand (Glark would say 5778) years ago, or did this happen over millions of years?
 
edwest211 said:
The Bible speaks of this but people are persuaded that men, not God, have the final say. Science is way too broad a term. I submit to Church teaching not men.
Click to expand...
Not quite a Catholic point of view.
If you claim submission to the Church, by definition you submit to legitimate and reasonable authority.
While it is true that no scientist has authority over the destiny of your soul, the science which created the vaccine designed to save your child’s life deserves the adherence of your intellect and good will.
Because…submitting to the Church means you also submit to the legitimate welfare of others.
Holding to positions that are contrary to reason does not promote the welfare of others. (not saying you are necessarily doing this, but it seems that you are defending ignorance in general, in favor of a sort of fideism).
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
40.png
buffalo:
IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.
Click to expand...
Was every creature “kind” that has ever lived created in a literal 6x24 hour window?

Was that window several thousand (Glark would say 5778) years ago, or did this happen over millions of years?
Click to expand...
To follow up with the other poster:
Show us where the metal dome is that separates the land from the waters.
Yes, in the original languages, it’s “hammered metal dome”. If the earth is 6000 years old cause the bible says so, then there is also a metal dome in the sky. Either biblical literature admits of various senses, or it’s all personal literalism. Which is it?
 
vz71 said:
40.png
anon65111186:
Well, taking that as a standard. How can you prove that humans are related or “close” to one another? No two people have the same DNA?
Click to expand...
I am not the one proposing that ‘closeness’ in DNA indicates proof that we came from some other animal.

I would however propose that a ‘close’ genetic code indicates we share characteristics with other creatures. It does not at all indicate an origin.
Click to expand...
When we see organisms with a known common origin having similar genetic codes it is reasonable to say that organisms with similar genetic codes have a common origin.
 
vz71 said:
Because to understand, facts must be put in proper context.

If we are to believe God is the author of all, then that is the context.
Click to expand...
This is at best a meaningless statement. [Is it perhaps born of a need to make God’s creative “act” tangible in a way WE can understand it?]

Try again to explain why developing explanations for natural events (say, volcanic eruptions) requires God to be mentioned?
 
I’m sick of atheists and christians bringing the question of God into science as if to say the ligitimacy of my faith is dependent upon the verdict of science… You cannot prove God’s existence with the scientific method and neither can you disprove God’s existence.with the scientific method. God is not a physical object.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top