Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Augustine thought it was created in an instant.
Click to expand...
Yes, and a lot of other people think it was created over a long period of time. Since this idea of Augustine never made it into binding infallible Catholic doctrine, I am free to believe either Augustine or these other guys. I choose the other guys.
 
C’mon. You know the argument. Adaptation can be done by the organisms own programming.

There is a clear divide between micro and macro.
 
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...
There is an observed instance of speciation involving only three mutations: Tauber and Tauber (1977) Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci: Evidence from Natural Populations in Two Habitats. Are you seriously telling us that three changes to DNA are impossible?

This is just one observation of macroevolution.

rossum
 
Yes, there are speculations by many people at many times during their life.

The point is the church taught until recently they were 24 hour periods.

June 30, 1909

I: Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?
Answer: In the negative.

II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?
Answer: In the negative to both parts.

III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative.

IV: In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one?
Answer: In the affirmative.

V: Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
Answer: In the negative.
 
VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?
Answer: In the affirmative.

VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?
Answer: In the negative.

VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative.
 
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.
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...
They have lost the ability to breed with the old species, but they have gained the ability to breed with the new species. Every loss can be redefined as a gain, and vice versa.

Just like people with the HbC mutation lose the ability to die from malaria.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?

Answer: In the affirmative.
Click to expand...
So the 24-hour interpretation is allowed as is the longer period interpretation. The Church does not mandate the 24-hour interpretation like some Protestant groups.

rossum
 
Let’s work this back to an earlier time. These originals could reproduce. Over time, they LOST the ability and now we have what is a man-made definition of speciation ala evolution. I would call this devolution.
 
No, my point was until 1909 the Church taught a 24 hour day. Only after the uniformatarian view was claimed to be fact did the Church answer in this way.
 
anon65111186 said:
Not familiar with that term, sorry. That is a standard definition of facts in the scientific world though, sorry it doesn’t impress
Click to expand...
It’s from Stephen Jay Gould; evolutionists love to quote it: "In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”
Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, 1994
I believe you are repeating yourself Glark. Didn’t you already ask this like 2 times already? I asked for a quote from the Catechism last time where you got that. Did you provide that source?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I assumed you got my rely, but it got lost somehow. So I’ll try again. Here is paragraph 283 from the Catechism, which I strongly disagree with:
  1. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.”
I said, theory is not fact, even the theory of plate tectonics is not a fact, though we see that the earth’s plates shift and cause earthquakes and tsunamis.
Click to expand...
The Catechism implies that the theory of evolution is not only a fact (referring to it as “knowledge … discoveries”), but that it is on a par with the infallible knowledge of God (“unerring knowledge” that God taught to Solomon).
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
No, my point was until 1909 the Church taught a 24 hour day. Only after the uniformatarian view was claimed to be fact did the Church answer in this way.
Click to expand...
Augustine was not guilty of heresy. Dogma doesn’t change. Hmmm, let me think. 24 hour 6 day creation was not catholic dogma. It was a popular point of view.
 
Last edited:
Your interpretation of that Scripture is superficial and amateurish. Or maybe just tendentious - on one hand you criticise literal interpretations of the Bible, but on the other hand you interpret literally when it suits you, as with your “God creates evil” Isaiah verse.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Bradskii:
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.
Click to expand...
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 .
Click to expand...
This isn’t something that happened millions of years ago. This happens all the time right now. Sometimes the differences are too small over too long a period to be noticeable. And there are other factors at play all the time. That’s why we are using this simple hypothetical to show how it works in principle.

I am not saying that there ever was such an island with the dogs and the chooks. But if there were and the scenario was as described, then we would expect to see a result as I described.

This is simply micro evolution. In fact, a classic example. As I recall, you have previously stated that you have a problem with macro evolution, but no problem with micro evolution (because there is no change at the species level). That’s what we have here in our scenario.

And as Buffalo said earlier, no-one has any problem with it.

Agreed?
 
Last edited:
Darwin’s theory of Evolution is only 158 years old. His published work, On the Origin of Species, was published in 1859. During the year 1859, in the months January to March,

January–March
January 24 (O. S.) – Wallachia and Moldavia are united under Alexandru Ioan Cuza (Romania since 1866, final unification takes place on December 1, 1918; Transylvania and other regions are still missing at that time).
January 28 – The city of Olympia is incorporated in the Washington Territory, in the United States of America.
February 4 – German scholar Constantin von Tischendorf rediscovers the Codex Sinaiticus, a 4th-century uncial manuscript of the Greek Bible, in Saint Catherine’s Monastery on the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Khedivate of Egypt.
February 14 – Oregon is admitted as the 33rd U.S. state.
February 17 – French naval forces under Charles Rigault de Genouilly capture the city and Citadel of Saigon in Vietnam, beginning the Siege of Saigon.
February 27 – United States Congressman Daniel Sickles shoots Philip Barton Key (U.S. District Attorney), for having an affair with his wife.
March 9 – The army of the Kingdom of Sardinia mobilizes against Austria, beginning the crisis which will lead to the Austro-Sardinian War.
March 21 – The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania issues the charter establishing the Zoological Society of Philadelphia, the first organization of its kind in the United States, and founder of the nation’s first zoo.
March 26 – A French amateur astronomer, Edmond Modeste Lescarbault, claims to have noticed a planet closer to the Sun than Mercury (later named Vulcan).

1859 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
buffalo said:
C’mon. You know the argument. Adaptation can be done by the organisms own programming.

There is a clear divide between micro and macro.
Click to expand...
Once you get rid of the theory that the plans for all adaptive changes were pre-existing in the genetic code, the distinction between micro and macro evolution goes away. It is an artificial distinction.
 
buffalo said:
Let’s work this back to an earlier time. These originals could reproduce. Over time, they LOST the ability and now we have what is a man-made definition of speciation ala evolution. I would call this devolution.
Click to expand...
Again playing with names! Your calling it something different does not make it any different. Didn’t Wm. S. write “A rose by any other name…”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top