Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific


No, no, Bradskii,

Abiogenesis is fairy tale science. Many have tried to prove it and all have failed.

It is a complete nonsense dreamed up by fantasists and atheists desperate to show there is a naturalistic explanation for life when most on this Catholic site know that God made us.

I don’t use “creationist sites” as you allege, but your ad hominem attack on me is welcomed as a clear sign that you have lost the argument
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


That is not what your interpretation of scripture says. Others interpret it differently.

Genesis has cattle very near the beginning of life on land. If your interpretation of scripture were correct, then we would expect to see fossil cattle very soon after the appearance of life on land. Where are those early fossil cattle?



If you knew anything about fossils you would know that they form after (flood) sedimentation. There were NO fossils till after the flood @rossum
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


Again you show a lack of knowledge @rossum. 1/5000 of an inch per year sedimentation will not fossilize anything. Catastrophic sedimentation is needed to completely bury organisms and start the process of fossilization.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


So pre-Flood there were no flooded rivers, landslides, volcanic eruptions, ect.
No tar pits or sinkholes.
No people buried their dead (you’d expect some fossil humans intermingled with dinosaurs.)


False. Local floods or eruptions can deposit a lot more than 1/5000 of an inch in a lot less than a year. Have you ever heard of Pompeii or Herculaneum? Entire cities buried in a few days.

As I said, you need to think through there ludicrously bad excuses you keep coming up with.

Fish. Barrel. Shoot.



That’s right. Partly buried organic material will begin to decompose.


Exactly and yet the evolutionary science guys don’t seem to want to understand that @edwest211
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


Lets look at the math on functional proteins “just happening” by evolution

Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.


Evolution is not “just happening”. Evolution is a process which involves natural selection. Any attempt to calculate the maths of evolution that does not incorporate the effects of natural selection is irrelevant since it is not modelling evolution.

Your video talks about “form by random events” so it is yet another irrelevant calculation which ignores the effects of natural selection. GIGO.

You might also usefully learn the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. They are not the same, though they are somewhat related. Wickramasinghe, to whom your video refers, was talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. It is an error to confuse the two. Calculations that apply to one do not apply to the other since different processes are in play.

Your video is shooting at the wrong target.



You know more than Sir Fred Hoyle ? Pity he never met you
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologist. Again, he was talking about Abiogenesis, not Evolution. As you will note from the title, this thread is about evolution. If you want to talk about abiogenesis then I suggest you start a new thread.



So, if someone wanted to talk about the evolution of the automobile…they couldn’t talk about the horse and buggy ?


@rossum as a Buddhist is anti-Catholic teaching, and opposed to Hoyle (as a mere mathematical astronomer) discussing the impossibility of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is needed to oppose God’s creation, and abiogenesis is mathematically impossible


I am unaware that any automobiles are von Neumann machines, able to self-replicate. Evolution, in the Darwinian sense, only happens to imperfect self-replicators. Automobiles do not qualify.

For an interesting take on the evolution of von Neumann machines, read Stanislaw Lem’s ‘The Invincible’.



How so? Is your God incapable of designing a universe within which life will arise? Who set the rules of the universe? The rules of chemistry? The rules of physics? Any omnipotent, omniscient entity would be able to set the rules and the initial conditions so as to produce exactly the intended result.

Only an inferior deity would not be able to set thing up correctly from the start and have to nudge things along from time to time to make the result come out right. That makes the designer of Intelligent Design inferior to such an omnimax deity, who has no need to intervene directly because everything is correctly on the foreseen track.

Science in general, and biology in particular, merely study the processes by which that exactly foreseen outcome is reached.

There is no opposition to God’s creation. There is opposition to both a woodenly literal interpretation of Genesis or to the small version of Intelligent Design propounded by the Discovery Institute.

As a Buddhist I am for much Catholic teaching. For example, the Pope’s recent pronouncement on capital punishment is excellent, and also good Buddhism.



Your message is opposed to Genesis 2:7 @rossum
“Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”


My message is opposed to a literal interpretation of Genesis. However, aiui, such an interpretation is not mandated by the Catholic Church, wisely in my opinion. The Church has learned from the Galileo incident; it appears that you might not have. In matters of the material, then interpretations of scripture must take account of the relevant science.

I await with interest your evidence for birds (Genesis day 5) existing before land animals (Genesis day 6).



What specifically did she learn?


Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, “although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” [1 Timothy 1.7]

Augustine - The Literal Meaning of Genesis 1:19

Maybe “re-learn” would have been better.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.