Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?


#1

Is Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution True ?


The theory of evolution: how do you explain dog breeds?
Why accomodate Darwin?
#2

Yes, it is. We have tons of evidences for that one of them is bacterial resistance.


#3

But that’s just Microevolution.


#4

A theory by definition is not a fact. To say the Theory of Evolution is a fact is an oxymoron. it is one of the characteristics of those who either don’t believe in God or put all their faith in science. The proof, the fossil evidence is so many millions of years apart that to say evolution is a fact is a stretch. And some believe that if you tell a (lie is such a bad word here), whatever over and over people will begin believing it is true. The tactic of many an atheist.
That said, I think it is a good theory, it just hasn’t been proved conclusively and probably never will. And if it did, it wouldn’t change the faith of believers. Personally I think such things as evolution, the big bang theory, and other such conjectures are merely the tools the Creator (God) used to create, and continue to create existence as we perceive it.


#5

No. The modern synthesis is collapsing as we speak. The tree of life has fallen and is now a bush. HGT, junk DNA no more, ATP synthase motor, genetic code is complex with layers and meanings frontwards and back, the cell is a miniature factory, genetic entropy, just to name a few.

Adaptation (aka micro evolution) is true and no one argues it.


#6

Bacteria have a “memory” and communicate rapidly. It is not a proof.


#7

Explore this site to see the mounting evidence against it. http://www.idvolution.org


#8

any scientific theory cannot be proved 100%. remember its inductive reasoning, highly accurate in many cases, but inductive. I personally would not try to use scientific theories in philosophical proofs.


#9

My whole take on this theory is that there was no fuel to get it off the ground.There has to be a food chain to support an Ecosystem.Other than photosynthesis the first mutating cell would had to have created it’s own food supply for it to progress into something new.


#10

Your creationist sources are lying to you. For example, HGT is included in the Theory of Evolution and is not a threat to it.

Creationists have been predicting the fall of evolution since 1859, and it is still going strong.

rossum


#11

We discussed this in the previous thread. The very first life ‘ate’ chemicals in water and extracted energy from those chemicals: they were chemotrophs. Later, some organisms evolved to eat the chemotrophs: heterotrophs. Lastly photosynthesis evolved so some organisms could get their energy direct from the sun: autotrophs.

The very early food chain was very simple: chemicals -> energy. It only became more complex later.

rossum


#12

That part doesn’t make sense where did they come from.


#13

It’s like the old thread. Only with less comments

For now…:rofl:


#14

How weird is this. You have asked a question about a subject which in other threads you have exhibited a complete and utter lack of knowledge and yet, as is apparent from your posts above, you have no interest in listening to any of the answers.

This thread should have been titled: Evolution Is Nonsense - Who Agrees With Me?


Evolution is contradictory?
Evolution is contradictory?
#15

I use science sources primarily as you well know.

Perhaps you have not been keeping up. No it is not going strong.


#16

In the end, even Darwin doubted it. Which should say enough.

He was a bright man and there are certainly ghosts of a potential mechanism at work. You can see it in the very evolution of cells and the world around.

But as the divide people try and portray it as? Science vs Religion. Not so much.

There are a whole lot of plot holes in the idea. And a mechanism of adaptation and change, still does nothing to address origin whatsoever. Darwins views are nothing to panic about and if anything have only gone on to further our wonder at the intricate sophistication of creation.


#17

Bacterial resistance is evidence that humans evolved from microbes? From a purely naturalistic point of view, I can’t see how.

If God guides evolution, anything is possible, so evidence of how it happened is not necessary. How can science explain a supernatural process?


#18

Science deals with the natural world. It doesn’t deal with anything super natural. By definition. Do you understand that statement? Good, we can move on.

If science finds an answer to how something happend, we call that something ‘natural’. From a theistic point of view you can still claim that God made it happen in that particular way. But if that particular way obeyed the laws of science as we understand them (even if, from a theistic perspctive you want to claim that God designed thise laws), we still call it natural.

If Science hasn’t found an answer, it says: ‘We don’t know’. You could then claim that God is the cause, but you are doing that in amy case for the things that happen in a natural way. So you haven’t addd anything different but you are setting yourself up to look foolish if science does come up with a natural answer. God of the gaps as it were.

If science declares that something has happened that definately does not obey natural laws, then they will declare it to be super natural and all those with a deity that they could claim has caused it will be free to argue their case.

Evolution has very many scientific explanations. Much much more than either of us has of even being remotely able to understand even a tiny fraction of it. And that’s on the assumption that we would be interested in learning about it. In your case, that is not the case.


#19

You already know the answer. Is this trolling?


#20

Well it’s a paradox when you ask if a theory is true. There’s theories the moon landing was a hoax. I guess it all depends the kool aid you drink.


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.