Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Glark said:
I must be really stupid - I can’t see what relevance evidence of humans descending from humans has to do with humans descending from an ape. I wish I were as smart as an evolutionist. And what about their powers of wild extrapolation? Amazing!
Click to expand...
Humans are different from other humans. The DNA predicts the degree of difference. Humans are also different from apes. It is reasonable to assume that DNA predicts the degree of difference there too.
 
It matters. Adaptations are what some call micro-evolution. No one argues it. What is argued it macro-evolution. I do not know why it is so hard to grasp this distinction.
 
Aloysium said:
In this case thinking sarcasm has more validity than assuming stupidity. The latter is not such a good thing on forums btw.

I don’t believe anyone is arguing against adaptation. The issue is speciation…
Click to expand...
By framing the issue with terms that make it sound like adaptation is an entirely different thing from speciation, you have stated your prejudice against considering them to be expressions of the same thing, differing only in degree. As I said before, if one is ideologically opposed to considering speciation to be adaptation carried out to the larger degree, then it is no surprise that one will reject evolution.
 
buffalo said:
It matters. Adaptations are what some call micro-evolution. No one argues it. What is argued it macro-evolution. I do not know why it is so hard to grasp this distinction.
Click to expand...
buffalo said:
It matters. Adaptations are what some call micro-evolution. No one argues it. What is argued it macro-evolution. I do not know why it is so hard to grasp this distinction.
Click to expand...
You say it matters, but all you do is throw around more names for things and say they are different just because you give them different names.
 
Last edited:
anon65111186 said:
He was trying to dialogue with them, just like St. Paul did with the altar to the unknown god in Athens.
Click to expand...
St. Paul dialogued with pagans in order to convert them to Christ - as per Christ’s commandment to convert the whole world. JPII’s aim was not conversion; he was not a missionary - more like an anti-missionary.
Saint JPII was emphasizing what we have in common.
Click to expand...
So what’s the point of that? It’s the duty of Catholics to convert pagans to Christ (despite what the post-Vat II Church thinks) not leave them in spiritual darkness. JP II spent a lot of time teling pagans how lovely their false religions were but did nothing to try and convert them.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
The Church through the centuries had thought the day was 24 hours.
Click to expand...
Augustine for one did not, so at best you have “most of the Church.”

Then there is 2 Peter 3:8 as well as other places. A “day” is not always 24 hours, so there is room for reasonable doubt on this.

rossum
 
What? One day I could reproduce and the next day I cannot? That is the loss of an ability I once had.

Here is the dictionary definition:

noun, Biology.
1.
the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.
 
edwest211 said:
And rejecting evolution leads to what tangible consequence?
Click to expand...
Hmmm, let me think.

AAh. Yes. People start thinking that God’s word is unreliable because it is not consistent with our observation of physical reality? You think that might be a consequence? A devastating consequence.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
What? One day I could reproduce and the next day I cannot? That is the loss of an ability I once had.

Here is the dictionary definition:

noun, Biology.
1.
the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.
Click to expand...
That is quite different from your definition, which focused on loss of general function, not the function of interbreeding. While speciation does lose the ability to interbreed with the old species, it gains the ability to interbreed with the members of the new species, so it is not so much a loss of function as a transfer of function from one group to another.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
Science cannot explain the origins of life - that’s God territory.
Click to expand...
God cannot explain the origin of life either. Since God is Himself alive, then an explanation of the origin of life is an explanation of the origin of God.

Remember that God cannot create the first living being; at best He can only create the second living being.

rossum
 
The Church thought this until lately and when the Pontifical Commission in the early 1900’s gave permission to consider it more than 24 hours. This was brought upon by the uniformatarian view of the age of the earth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top