It is not scaleable and that is the problem with Darwinism.
Thank you truth speaker, so why did you post this?
ME: Darwinism usually refers strictly to biological evolution, but creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of life, and it has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin’s work.
GLARK: It’s my understanding that Charles Darwin came up the (in)famous “Tree of Life”, which describes the theory of common ancestry. In which case, it’s entirely appropriate to think of Darwinism as microbe-man evolution.
It sounds like you are trying to say it refers to the origin of life.
Well said - it is a fantasy and it is comical.
Evolution (supposedly) started with the simplest creature - a microbe - and has (supposedly) led to the most complex creature - man. Hence the term, “microbe-man evolution”.
"Creationism is ‘an absolutely horrible hypothesis’’’. There are lots of gullible people who will translate this as: “The Bible is nonsense, so Christianity is nonsense.” How Satan must love evolution!
Okay, yes, and according to modern research, like in this article, which says “the probability that humans were created separately from everything else is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.”
See my post above for details.
Good for evolution that the truth of scientific theories doesn’t rely on opinions of usefulness.
If we tested how pragmatic each theory was, you might be surprised how many might not meet what appear to be your standards.
Useful to whom, to you? Who must it be useful to in order to be judged useful?
Is there objective usefulness? Like objective truth? Usefulness implies a user, a subject.
Scientists use evolution because it is indeed the most fitting and most useful for explaining how the animals on Galapagos became the way they are.
Do you have something more useful than evolution to explain the data?
I believe God would agree, in line with our recent Pope John Paul II, Benedict, and current Pope Francis that Creationism is a horrible hypothesis. Yet they don’t jump to conclusions about the Bible and Christianity, because there is no need to jump to that conclusion.
You can’t gullible-people-proof scientific theories or even Theology and Church teaching, as is very obvious if you have been on this forum for long. The best you can do is educate those gullible people and pray for them. Instead of focusing on how happy the Devil may be.
It is easy to say what you could do. It is much harder to actually do it. Me, I think I could be a winning superbowl quarterback. But I don’t want to.
Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve
Pope Emeritus Benedict :
God governs the stars, that is, the universe; it is not the laws of matter and of evolution that have the final say, but reason, will, love—a Person (but they do have a say)
We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are.
the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities
“To ‘evolve’ literally means ‘to unroll a scroll,’ that is, to read a book. The imagery of nature as a book has its roots in Christianity and has been held dear by many scientists.
Saint John Paul II
Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God
" my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points"
“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution”
" The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
“You know that some scientists affirm man’s dependence on the evolution of nature and place him in the changeable becoming of the various species. These affirmations, to the extent to which they are really proved, are very important, because they tell us that we must respect the natural world of which we are part”
“the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens”
“Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion (evolution) as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions… Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis”
It’s useful because there are fossils and animals, and we would like to understand more about them. We do this by thinking about what we can see, and developing ideas. We then test our ideas by collecting more information to see if they hold up.
I can’t “prove” that something is useful, because utility is dependent on having some goal, and because goals are arbitrary. As I’ve said many times, if your goal is to maintain a literal view of Biblical creationism, then evolution is probably totally useless to you. If your goal is to be considered will-educated and intelligent, then you should probably consider spending a little more time at least with the basics of evolution-- I mean, if you want to argue against it, that’s fine. But you should probably first understand it before you start attempting to refute it.
Some of your comments make it obvious that you know little about the scientific process in general, or about the scientific study of evolution specifically. There’s really not much I can say to someone who so willfully ignores the Truth that God has writ so consistently throughout the world and through its geologic history.
That you think your ignorance is an act of faith is troublingly ironic. Obviously, faith requires a sincere pursuit of truth, and the consideration of truth requires an open and careful consideration of the evidence at hand. Covering your ears and shouting “La la la” over and over isn’t an act of faith-- it’s evidence that your faith may be much weaker than you’d like it to be.
A true and existent God doesn’t need your kind of faith. But you, if you want understanding that might help you be more useful in serving your God, might want to consider opening your eyes a little more.
If your God created nature and nature created us, then what is the problem? God tells us that He did not create living organisms directly: “Let the waters bring forth…” and “Let the earth bring forth…” God made the waters and the earth (your ‘nature’) and living organisms emerged from those waters and earth as God foresaw and intended.
You seem have a very narrow interpretation of both the Bible and of the power and foresight of your God.
There’s no point my trying to clarify; you seem to want to argue everything.
We were created perfect and random mutations are messing up the human genome. It is called the fall of mankind that happened after the original sin that alienated us from God.
I won’t bother linking the Nature article again since it takes time better spent on more productive endeavours, and seeing that those promoting evolution here do not seem to want to understand evolution. But, it described how speciation is being shown to be the result of gene deletion. The issue then arises as to how what is being degradated was formed in the first place.
God did build life step by step, using lower orders of being to form the content of new creations. This is not evolution.
So chimpanzees were created 90% perfect and bananas were created about 50% perfect? If perfection resides in our genome, then other organisms which share parts of our genome are therefore also partly perfect.
How perfect was the genome of the serpent in the Garden? That was present before the Fall, wasn’t it?
He is everyone’s God.
He has foresight only in relation to our existence, which is in the moment cut into time and space, with its past-present-future. He creates all moments. He is the Being that encompasses and is within every component of this and every experience. Although one may think that oneself does not really exist, it takes a lot of intellectualization to deny the existence of this word right here. So, as what is happening here is one - one person seeing, thinking, feeling and acting - all these components together, united in an experiential flux, so too all time and space, with everything in it exists within God’s Now. He brings into existence the universe from eternity, a universe that contains beings who participate in their own creation.
The truth about evolution is that it is actually devolution.
It is interesting to speculate on the nature of the serpent’s genome. I’m going to assume that it was built for reproduction, since Genesis talks about its offspring. I would say that all of its DNA had a purpose in forming and maintaining a body fit to participate within its environment. In other words, all this started with the fittest and fittingest. The phenotype, the gross appearance of the organism is linked to its genotype, the almost infinitely complex molecular structure of the DNA and the cellular processes associated with it. Changing that information would ultimately cause it to lose its limbs, as a glitch in breast tissue reproduction can cause a ductal carcinoma. The serpent, physically perfect and spiritually perfect in its possession of a free will, chose to degrade itself, and entice us to follow him. What happened then on a physical level is the most meaningless; there exists a depth of meaning to Genesis that takes us to the core of what it means to be sentient beings capable of communing with the Source of our existence.
He is not my God. I do not want to be associated with a God who kills so many people, unborn children included.
And, that book was not written by randomly mutating letters, nor proof-read by natural selection. It was written by the Word of God.
We all must base our opinions on some authority. We are however responsible for what we believe. ultimately, it is a matter between oneself and the Truth.
The quote above is not divinely inspired. St John Paul here clearly demonstrates the use of logic based on certain premises that he has picked up in his studies of nature.
I’m pretty sure, with all his other responsibilities and efforts he wasted less time on this subject than most people posting in this thread. I most certainly have spent more time thinking about it, a half a century for sure where it was not far because it relates to who we are, a fathomless mystery to be sure.
At any rate, he was not aware of where genetics has gone or how the conception of matter itself is evolving (being unscrolled).
This superficial treatment of a subject which gets at the core of what it means to be human, does not address many of the points that make scientism’s version of evolution incompatable with the Christian faith. One major issues is that evolution has to do with changes in a group of individual organisms. The picture it paints is that there was no first man and no woman who came from him. Our earliest ancestors would have been born, prone to illness and with genetic defects already present before any original sin, which would have been more of a recognition of goodness and evil than a particular act. There is also no mechanism by which future generations would contract it and there would be no need for a baptismal cleansing.
The ideas that are being expressed do comply with the modern version of reality. While ignorance has many other faces, that vision, which is a distortion at best, is a major enabler of attitudes behind the ugliness and horrors of recent history. In my interactions with people, especially among the young, I have found that Darwinism is a corrosive element to people’s faith. I think that to consider it just another scientific theory, like string theory, to give it some credence in order to bring people into the fold, is wrong headed. It is better to simply ignore it and go straigt for the revealed truth. But if confronted, one should remain firm - to be Christian means being a creationist, however God did it, and it did not all happen by itself.
Better no God than one who is evil; I get that. But rather than there being nothing, there exists the Truth, which is gentle and is Love. It is for that reason why this vale of tears, this world filled with sin does not feel right, why one would not want to associate oneself with its Lord. In and through the Man on the cross, we transcend our condition of craving and illusion, into the Light.
You are mixing genetics with original sin. You have said before Adam and Eve were perfect, but yet I have no idea what criteria you have for perfection. Was it genetic perfection? First of all, to make that claim you have to know the whole DNA sequence of Adam and Eve, which we don’t know. So you have to simply speculate.
It sounds like you are projecting “an” interpretation of Genesis mixed with philosophy on the science of the first two humans, and coming to a genetic conclusion.
So, what was the reason their material bodies were perfect? Do you we have any scientific evidence for this perfection?
Mutations are bad if they change perfect to less perfect, but unfortunately there is no “immortal” or “sinless” gene, that was lost or mutated.
The issue is the theory of evolution and the reality and history of mankind.
To say they were perfect is in the Darwinist sense - that they were perfectly suited to their environment. This is in contradistinction to our present state where we have all sorts of genetic and congental health problems and deficiencies.
We can trace back the movement of people through the world by doing statistical analyses of our genome geographically and in time. What is determined are changes which do not necessarity result in a defect but are alterations of what was. Nothing is being built in the process; it is rather a slow degradation. Tracing things back, we can speculate that we were a better fit to the environment.
Consider that it may not be me who is projecting.
Okay, but Darwin himself didn’t believe in perfect adaptation, at least at the end of his life.
Environments were different, as were living conditions. Yet we still have humans living shorter lifespans, dying of all kinds of diseases, even from the beginning of the homo sapiens fossil record.
Basically, where is this perfectly adapted human in the evidence? This is what you have to show to say we have devolved.