Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

[Aloysium]

That’s not true as written in blanket fashion.
Some scientists deny the resurrection. Some scientists don’t. Some scientists overreach with science. Some don’t.
Some Catholics practice fideism, some don’t.
Etc…

You mean someone who does science expressed his opinion that the Resurrection can’t happen?

Well, by what we know of the natural world it would not happen “naturally”. I’m actually glad he or she said that. I agree with them…

As far as what’s possible outside the natural order, he or she could only be expressing their philosophical opinion, an opinion which is clearly erroneous.

I mean the science that proclaims Evolutionary theory has no explanation for the final resurrection. It must deny it or admit that its assumptions are wrong.

So how do you think it will happen? By what process will we again be body-spirit persons?

And why exactly is it that Adam could not have been created in a similar fashion? This has to with biology and physics, but perhaps not those of a fallen world.

 

[goout]

Honest question. Where do I submit regarding science? Who do I submit to? Honest comparison: Do I offer submission to the person and companies that make cars? I’m not interested in fancy terminology just a simple yes or no.

You’re just going to have to use your common sense Ed. That means you trust the Church. The Church trusts and encourages scientific discovery.
Your common sense should be in common with the Church and others.

There is no fundamentalist pat answer to your question.

 

[Aloysium]

organisms that we know have a common origin do have similar genetic codes.

I get it. Those organisms that have a similar code, have a common origin. We know this of course because those that have a common origin have a similar code. This is just like we know that things happen because they happen (RM), and organisms that have offspring survived long enough to procreate (NS). It’s brilliantly simplistic.

 

[edwest211]

What does the “fundamentalist” part of your reply mean? This topic is not about scientific discovery but the validity of a certain scientific theory. So, please, no play on words. I am for scientific discovery. I hope you’re not implying I’m not. But drug discovery is very expensive because all researchers have to work with is trial and error. Evolution offers them no guidance.

 

[goout]

This is how I see it:
Gen 1 appears to be written from God’s perspective.

Imagine God looking at a tape measure rolled into 7 layers. God sees it all at once. He is outside of time. We are on the tape and have to look back on the graduations. I am not sure of the graduations length. Having said all that, if God says it was six days as we know them, it is six days then. Why would I doubt Him?

Then you must show us the hammered dome in the sky. That’s what the bible says. If it says so in the bible, why would you doubt Him? Show us the hammered dome. You are interpreting the bible as a fundamentalist, not with the Church. The Church does not admit narrowly individual interpretations.

Until the last few hundred years most everyone took it to mean 24 hour days.

That’s not true. You should know basic background if you are going to debate a complex topic.

The bottom line is that the Holy Spirit allowed our understanding to be in error for so long and then suddenly woke up and corrected the record? We really need to press science and make sure their claims are correct.

Then go to school, earn a biology or geology degree, get a specialization in paleontology. “Paleontology” is the subject you are debating. And evolutionary science. Genetics.
Do you have degrees in any of those? If not, then you do not know what you are talking about.
Case closed.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

There is no comparison to how society operates. We are talking about nature. If you were a dog and needed food, would you eat the chickens that were easy to catch or the ones that were difficult? It’s an easy answer as I’m sure you’d agree. It’s literally the survival of the fittest.

I understand and agree with the concept only as far as selective breeding goes, not
the morphing into completely new species. Plus there’s no fossil records to back that up. And what you say is survival of the fittest, I call it a food chain.

No problem. And yet again I must insist that no-one is talking about any new species. We’re just looking at how things tend to work. And we can’t call this selective breeding because that implies that someone is making a conscious decision to intentionally direct the changes in the organism. As in selective breeding sheep to increase the fleece weight. In the case of the dogs and chickens, there is no conscious decision to increase the flying ability of the chooks or the climbing ability of the dogs. This is all happening quite naturally.

And yes, it’s a food chain. The dogs eat the chickens, the chickens eat the insects, the insects eat smaller insects etc. This is always the case. But in this example, the chickens and the dogs that tend to survive are the ones that are best fitted to their environment. That is, the dogs that can climb the best get to eat the chickens that can’t fly very well and the chickens that fly better than their peers stay alive longer. In both examples, the organism that survives longer is more likely to pass on the genes that enabled it to survive.

So now, from a group of dogs that could hardly climb, we have dogs that can climb quite well. And from a group of chickens that could hardly fly, we have chickens that can fly very well.

It seems that we’re in agreement up to this point. Yet still dogs and chickens. Just dogs and chickens with a greater ability to survive in their particular environment.

So if you were to return to the island many years later, you would probably be surprised to see chickens, which could barely flap up to a low branch years ago now flying to the top of the trees.

And they are still chickens. Agreed?

 

[goout]

I mean the science that proclaims Evolutionary theory has no explanation for the final resurrection. It must deny it or admit that its assumptions are wrong.

So how do you think it will happen? By what process will we again be body-spirit persons?

And why exactly is it that Adam could not have been created in a similar fashion? This has to with biology and physics, but perhaps not those of a fallen world.

Why would evolutionary science have any explanation for the resurrection? The resurrection is not relevant to the field of study.

I don 't know how Adam’s body happened. Do you? I know God breathed a soul into the first human, or “Adam”. I’ll let science handle the how.

 

[IWantGod]

I mean the science that proclaims Evolutionary theory has no explanation for the final resurrection. It must deny it or admit that its assumptions are wrong.

It neither denies or affirms the Resurrection. The scientific method simply does not have the capacity to know. Could it be true that God will resurrect the dead? A good scientist will either tell you that science cannot determine whether or not such a thing will or has ever occurred, or they will give you their personal opinion about what they believe or don’t believe about divine revelation. End of story.

 

[Glark]

I wonder how science would explain life on earth

 

[Aloysium]

show us the hammered dome in the sky

Go to some quiet Greek or Italian beach. Feel the warm breezes drift from over the water, the hot sand under your feet. Be the countless lives that stood on such shores. Wonder at its clear blueness. Look up into the brilliant azure sky and tell me you don’t see a dome. At night I “see” Hubble images. But then, I’ve got a visual impairment that seems to enable me to “see” things I didn’t think were possible.

 

[Aloysium]

Unfortunately, you’ve made it the end of the story, closing the books on what constitutes reality.

 

[Glark]

That’s some pretty Impressive rhetoric, sister - what a pity its devoid of substance. With so many “predictions … confirmations … discoveries” to its name this magnificent theory must surely have produced countless uses in applied science. Alas, you can’t name even one practical use for the theory that all life on earth evolved from microbes. Contrary to the hype, its as useless and irrelevant as a fairy tale.

 

[buffalo]

Huh? Did you not see my example of how Catholics read Scripture?

The Church through the centuries had thought the day was 24 hours.

Why did it change?

 

[Techno2000]

So if you were to return to the island many years later, you would probably be surprised to see chickens, which could barely flap up to a low branch years ago now flying to the top of the trees.

If you could show me this in real life right now, I might could extrapolate this is how it worked millons of years ago. But so far this can only be speculation .

 

[buffalo]

Science was not there to observe.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, the church has been the biggest patron of science. Good science and correctly reasoned science that is.

 

[IWantGod]

Unfortunately, you’ve made it the end of the story, closing the books on what constitutes reality.

When people say things like this i can’t help but think that they put science on an epistemological pedestal, as if its suppose to constitute all possible knowledge, and if it doesn’t speak about God this is to be taken as an affirmation that God doesn’t exist! I

I don’t understand how you come to these conclusions. You don’t understand science at all…

 

[Aloysium]

Science can’t explain life any more than it can explain atoms and molecules, which just happened when the universe cooled and after these particle/waves found one another and decided to come together in very mind-blowingly complex ways.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

organisms that we know have a common origin do have similar genetic codes.

I get it. Those organisms that have a similar code, have a common origin. We know this of course because those that have a common origin have a similar code. This is just like we know that things happen because they happen (RM), and organisms that have offspring survived long enough to procreate (NS). It’s brilliantly simplistic.

I don’t know if you are being sincere or sarcastic. I will assume sarcastic, but if you really are being sincere in writing this, I apologize profusely in advance.

There are modern organisms that we know have a common origin because we have seen the process of their generation first-hand. Examples of such things include comparing human DNA of Asians, Africans, Europeans, Australian aborigines. We know they have a common origin because Asians tend to stay in Asia, Africans tend to stay in Africa, etc. What we find is that DNA from people who live in the same area (and therefore were descended from people in that area) have markers in that DNA that is not present in the DNA of people from other regions. This correlation is so strong that genetic testing companies can, with a fairly high degree of confidence, say whether a DNA sample is from a black, an Italian, a Scandinavian, or a native Hawaiian, etc. That is, genetic similarities are known to predict ancestry with a great deal of accuracy.

So we have a scientific principle that has been experimentally verified with so much evidence that it can be taken as a scientific truth. The only question is, does this principle, which has been verified for origins within a species, applies for origins between species? Well, if you are dead set against evolution on ideological grounds, you would probably say no, it doesn’t apply because common origin between species is just a crazy idea. But if you are not prejudice against the possibility of evolution, you would say of course, it makes sense.

 

[buffalo]

When out of arguments always attack the poster. Nice…