Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In an article, “The Energy of Space That Isn’t Zero”, Lawrence Krauss stated (2006):

But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun - the plane of the earth around the sun - the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is (s)imply incorrect, or maybe it’s telling us there’s something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there’s something wrong with our theories on the larger scales.
 
Last edited:
So let me understand correctly: You believe the earth is the center of the universe? When you say center, are you talking about the origin point, some sort of geographical positioning, or a gravitational center? What?
May I ask how old you are?
 
The Church has addressed the how regarding human beings. The theory cannot be verified.
 
You know who Lawrence Krauss is right?

This is not me speaking. This is science and the analysis of the data. 3 satellites sent up. They were trying disprove what they found.

There is more data coming in - stay tuned. BTW - heliocentrism has been disproven. Two are left standing. Acentrism, that is the center can be anywhere you want or geocentrism.
 
There is a difference between the Church positing a theory and the Church addressing the validity of a theory and the ramifications of it for theology.
For instance: if a scientist proposes that “God does not exist because evolution or the big bang proves it…” (Stephen Hawking) the Church obviously speaks to that.
That is not the same thing as the Church proposing science on it’s own, or the Church addressing the “how” of the big bang or the how of our material origins.

This is fairly standard Catholic thought here, in line with Papal writings and the thoughts of mainstream Catholic theologians, bishops, etc…
 
Last edited:
jcm2017 said:
*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. *
Click to expand...
I would agree with the quote. The issue then becomes one of distinguishing truth from ignorance.

The use of the term “scientific realities” is a bit ambiguous. I take it to mean that they would be aspects of the one reality, which is the totality of creation, as revealed by the scientific method.

It might prove to be a mutually enlightening discussion to start with some specific examples of where you feel people are ignorant of “scientific realities” in their criticism of Darwinism.

One of many criticisms of the Darwinism is the use of science to propagate what is actually a story of who and why we are. In doing so, it drags science beyond its confines of speaking solely of matter. I would argue that it should not speak of species at all, if the focus is to be on the chemistry of the cell. If one wants to include that dimension of being, One should extend one’s scope to considerations of what constitutes an individual animal and how individual animals are related to an encompassing entity of species. At that point, science would have to either expand into religion and philosophy, in which case concepts like the soul, the spirit and creation become crucial, or admit that biology has nothing to say about life other than its material manifestations. Organisms should not be reduced to mere chemical interactions. If it’s to be about molecules, there should be no talk of survival of the fittest or the fittingest since scientific reality reduced to only that dimension that is the one whole material field. As for Darwinism’s entry into psychology, it is simplistic, superficial and irrelevent. Now, if you wish to provide some helpful feedback, it would be much appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Do We Live in a Giant Cosmic Bubble?

One problem with the void idea, though, is that it negates a principle that has reigned in astronomy for more than 450 years: namely, that our place in the universe isn’t special. When Nicholas Copernicus argued that it made much more sense for the Earth to be revolving around the sun than vice versa, it revolutionized science. Since then, most theories have to pass the Copernican test. If they require our planet to be unique, or our position to be exalted, the ideas often seem unlikely.

“This idea that we live in a void would really be a statement that we live in a special place,” Clifton told SPACE.com. “The regular cosmological model is based on the idea that where we live is a typical place in the universe. This would be a contradiction to the Copernican principle.” https://www.space.com/5912-live-giant-cosmic-bubble.html
 
The Church is not limited to faith and morals, and does touch upon scientific claims.

"In the book, 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."
 
Right “Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes”. Pope John Paul II
 
Last edited:
“Aloysium said:
jcm2017 said:
*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. *
Click to expand...
The use of the term “scientific realities” is a bit ambiguous.
Click to expand...
Evolution is a real thing, a well established scientific process. That’s a reality.

You know this discussion brings up a real problem.
We have people here who on the one hand would like our culture to recognize the scientific realities in regard to sexuality.
And at the same time these same people will not admit to mainstream scientific endeavor that is listened to by the Church, including Saints.

How will anyone respect Christian thought if it is not based on reason but rather on flimsy ideology?
These two issues at their heart are one and the same: they both ask us to stop, look, listen, and observe the world around us, and make a sane judgment about sexuality, and about the processes that move in the world God created. Faith and reason are not opposed to one another.

Honestly, what we have from so many Christians is just insane ignorance, and it scandalizes the world we are trying to evangelize.
It’s frustrating.
Click to expand...
 
Plant Galls and Evolution
How More than Twelve Thousand Ugly Facts are Slaying a Beautiful Hypothesis: Darwinism
[T]he great tragedy of Science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. …[But] Science
commits suicide …when it adopts a creed.
Thomas Henry Huxley

http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGalls.pdf
 
buffalo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Dear me. Everywhere is the centre of the known universe.
 
rossum said:
You start with God, origin unexplained. Evolution starts with life, origin partly unexplained and partly explained.

People in glass houses…
Click to expand...
This is a poor argument. You can’t compare religion and science. Religion relies on faith; science relies on empirical evidence (or is supposed to). Evolution isn’t science because, like religion, it relies on faith.
 
rossum said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Fall (of man and all of creation, caused by the original sin of Adam and Eve) can account for errors and copied errors.

There is no “tree” - this is a fantasy concocted by Darwinists. A real tree requires real branches, not imagined or assumed ones.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
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.
Click to expand...
If any of these things appeared, atheist “scientists” will find some way to fit them into their mythical “Tree of Life” . Such people would much rather accept a junk-science fantasy that accept the existence of God - they’re already doing it with the theory of evolution.
 
Brittany said:
It does not contradict at all. I take the creation account as an allegory, as a metaphor - and so did most of the Church Fathers. The literal interpretation of the creation account is actually a relatively new concept that arose with Fundamentalism in the 19th-20th centuries.
Click to expand...
Which theistic evolutionist fed you this nonsense? The opposite is true - the vast majority of early Church Fathers believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Augustine was one exception - but he favoured creation in an instant - not exactly helpful to the Darwinist cause. Origen was another exception - but he was notorious for his many wacko interpretations of Scripture (St. John of Damascus referred to some of them as “the ravings of Origen”).

The rest of your post is typical of theistic evolutionists - if a Scripture contradicts evolution, it is dismissed with a wave of the “metaphor” wand. This is not sound theology, but flat-out denial of God’s inspired word.
 
Last edited:
“jcm2017 said:
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…
Click to expand...

The evolution of humans from a microbe (or a monkey-man) is an established scientific fact? Can you cite a scientist who says so? Don’t be misled by the what the Catechism has to say on this topic - it’s shameful, Darwinist rubbish.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top