Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Not totally sure of that, we have many living fossils.
Click to expand...
You do realise that Coelacanths are in the line of descent to all land tetrapods? Does their genetics include what kangaroos and giraffes have today, and more that those species have since lost?
 
lelinator said:
I’m with @Freddy on this one. You haven’t really told us what your alternative theory is.
Click to expand...
@Freddy is in repose presently.

You ask for an alternate theory that explains the diversity of living creatures. I suppose you mean scientific theory, right? If so, give us your definition of “scientific”. That is, what makes a theory a “scientific” theory?
 
Last edited:
Adaption by natural selection among kinds of plants and animals are proven in the fossil record. Extinctions have also happened.
However, there is absolutely zero evidence of vertical evolution, one kind turning into another kind. Very few are aware of this. (*note: I almost certain
that number 3 below refers to extreme lack of evidence for ‘vertical’ evolution.
"The most important GENERAL CONCLUSIONS to be noted are as follows:
  1. The origin of life is unknown to science.
  2. The origin of the main organic types and their principal subdivisions are likewise unknown to science.
  3. There is no evidence in favor of an ascending evolution of organic forms.
  4. There is no trace of even a merely probable argument in favor of the animal origin of man. The earliest human fossils and the most ancient traces of culture refer to a true Homo sapiens as we know him today.
  5. Most of the so-called systematic species and genera were certainly not created as such, but originated by a process of either gradual or saltatory evolution. Changes which extend beyond the range of variation observed in the human species have thus far not been strictly demonstrated, either experimentally or historically.
  6. There is very little known as to the causes of evolution. The greatest difficulty is to explain the origin and constancy of “new” characters and the teleology of the process. Darwin’s “natural selection” is a negative factor only. The moulding influence of the environment cannot be doubted; but at present we are unable to ascertain how far that influence may extend. Lamarck’s “inheritance of acquired characters” is not yet exactly proved, nor is it evident that really new forms can arise by “mutation”. In our opinion the principle of “Mendelian segregation”, together with Darwin’s natural selection and the moulding influence of environment, will probably be some of the chief constituents of future evolutionary theories."
    source: Evolution | Catholic Answers
 
One of the saddest things of the massive acceptance of evolutionary theory is the diminished lack of sense of Sacredness of Life
because so many hold on to the theory of evolution as Deists(God is far away, not concerned with every day life of humanity or each of us) or Agnostics or Atheists. Alongside this has been the misuse of psychology for emotional seeming compassionate reactions to things such as suffering from same sex attraction. This came with the ‘sexual revolution’ intimately related to the rise of mass murder of helpless children. The increased diminished sense of Sacredness in general, The Sanctity of Human Life, the main purpose of sexuality as only between a husband & wife in the bonds of Holy Matrimony;
certainly is an affront to The Mercy of GOD through Jesus The Beloved Anointed One Savior of humanity. (This is Holy Week, and a Catholic Forum.)
Before 1950, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen saw the falling of Christendom resulting in massive bloodshed(didn’t know at the time it would be 42 million boys & girls in the womb, elderly and sick every single year.) Also, and increased diminishing in letting Grace (Divine Favor) diligently help individuals & families grow in Godly virtue with sincere firm purpose of amendment to turn away from sin.
Thus, weaker families and growth in community organizing collectivism complacent toward things being taught to children & impressionable by luring emotionalism seeming compassionate justification against revealed Eternal Truth from our Benevolent GOD in collectivism - gives a false sense of inner prestige & purpose of helping our brothers and sisters in humanity. This is extremely widespread today but so few see the cause and effect with the ramifications of reaping what we so alongside increased unearned suffering.
These intellectual philosophical debates are important in as much as it helps lead to JESUS The Beloved Savior, the Redemption of souls, and truly helping the poor through fostering honest caring Godliness alongside earthly needs.
Secular humanist humankind’s reasoning has resulted in dismal failure with much denial justifications alongside disillusioned children in overflowing family court, increased depression, substance abuse, suicide, mass shootings, abuse of children, unspeakable things done to children, missing and exploited children and so much more.
 
Last edited:
Have the ills of humanity been with us all along? Yes, but humanity keeps using the same methods under different names to try and solve them or be ambivalent to them. The stubborn refusal to see past the sins of human beings for The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a club for Saints - and be part of JESUS The Beloved Savior’s Glad Tidings, Good News, Gospel: is the reason GOD allows us to reap what we so and so much unearned suffering. Lord have Mercy!
~
Empiricism(scientific method of physical creation is the source of truth alongside behavior science), Naturalism, Secular humanism, Indifferent-ism(all religions are expressions of human need for God but basically the same for that need - overshadowing the contrast that Judaeo-Christianity sees GOD as giving Divine Favor to be received or not receive to be able to live with GOD in GOD’s Holiness and other religions teach self-purification with meditation & good works) - and other isms have shown themselves to be dismal failures. And so many make the false claim that Judaeo-Christianity is ‘exclusive’ ‘not multi-cultural’ ‘unkind’ ‘intolerant’ ‘even hateful’ and so much more. However, this type of thing, like Neron Caesar(six hundred and threescore six) blaming the ‘troublesome sect’ Christians for things such as the fires in Rome, is nothing new.
Conclusion: it is very sad so many hold to a practical blind faith in drastically unproven evolution, whereby such things as adaption within kinds of plants and animals has evidence; not evolution.
Peace, and Blessings this Holy Week and for you and your family.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
You ask for an alternate theory that explains the diversity of living creatures. I suppose you mean scientific theory, right? If so, give us your definition of “scientific”. That is, what makes a theory a “scientific” theory?
Click to expand...
Nope, it doesn’t have to be scientific at all…just explanatory. For example, do you agree with @buffalo that life began with a set of archetypal examples, and that all species alive today are simply derivations on these first primordial ancestors?

What manner of time frame are we talking about here?
 
lelinator said:
What manner of time frame are we talking about here?
Click to expand...
Missed that edit.

Whatever time frame the hypothesis of macroevolution claims as necessary. What is that time frame range?
 
Last edited:
IsaiahSpirit said:
Adaption by natural selection among kinds of plants and animals are proven in the fossil record. Extinctions have also happened.
However, there is absolutely zero evidence of vertical evolution, one kind turning into another kind. Very few are aware of this. (*note: I almost certain
that number 3 below refers to extreme lack of evidence for ‘vertical’ evolution.
"The most important GENERAL CONCLUSIONS to be noted are as follows:
  1. The origin of life is unknown to science.
  2. The origin of the main organic types and their principal subdivisions are likewise unknown to science.
  3. There is no evidence in favor of an ascending evolution of organic forms.
  4. There is no trace of even a merely probable argument in favor of the animal origin of man. The earliest human fossils and the most ancient traces of culture refer to a true Homo sapiens as we know him today.
  5. Most of the so-called systematic species and genera were certainly not created as such, but originated by a process of either gradual or saltatory evolution. Changes which extend beyond the range of variation observed in the human species have thus far not been strictly demonstrated, either experimentally or historically.
  6. There is very little known as to the causes of evolution. The greatest difficulty is to explain the origin and constancy of “new” characters and the teleology of the process. Darwin’s “natural selection” is a negative factor only. The moulding influence of the environment cannot be doubted; but at present we are unable to ascertain how far that influence may extend. Lamarck’s “inheritance of acquired characters” is not yet exactly proved, nor is it evident that really new forms can arise by “mutation”. In our opinion the principle of “Mendelian segregation”, together with Darwin’s natural selection and the moulding influence of environment, will probably be some of the chief constituents of future evolutionary theories."
    source: https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/evolution
Click to expand...
So, am I correct in assuming that you accept the basic concept of evolution, but you question its ability to explain the details? For example, you question its assertion that homo sapiens evolved from earlier hominids, in spite of what the fossil record may suggest. And lacking these details you choose to reject it as anything more than a secondary influence, and opt instead for some vague divine explanation.
 
o_mlly said:
So, you would accept a non-empirical theory has as much or more explanatory power than its juxtaposed scientific theory?
Click to expand...
So long as it aligns with the facts as we’re presently capable of understanding them.
o_mlly said:
40.png
lelinator:
What manner of time frame are we talking about here?
Click to expand...
Whatever time frame the hypothesis of macroevolution claims as necessary. What is that time frame range?
Click to expand...
In keeping with the above statement about aligning with the facts as we presently understand them, any theory should explain why life on earth appears to be millions of years old…and not merely thousands of years old as some theories might suggest. It’s perfectly acceptable to posit that life is only thousands of years old, so long as the evidence can be shown to support such a claim.

It would at least be nice to know at which end of the spectrum your beliefs lie.
 
I don’t know how you drew that conclusion.
I suppose you don’t understand the difference between ‘vertical’ evolution has zero evidence in the fossil record - one form turning into a higher form of life,
as opposed to,
the fossil record shows adaption within existing forms.
The callousness toward the Sanctity of human life has some of it’s roots
in those adhering to drastically unproven evolutionary theory.
Very sad.
 
Last edited:
IsaiahSpirit said:
I don’t know how you drew that conclusion.
I suppose you don’t understand the difference between ‘vertical’ evolution has zero evidence in the fossil record - one form turning into a higher form of life,
Click to expand...
I can be a bit slow at times, but I do think that I understand your meaning…although I find the following statement to be confusing: “one form turning into a higher form of life”. What exactly is a “higher” form of life? Perhaps it might have been less confusing if you had stated it as “one form turning into another form of life”. Something that I don’t think that evolution actually proposes.

As for my conclusion, you seem to accept the idea that evolution occurs, what you appear to have a problem with is how it explains the emergence of different “forms”. You seem to believe that evolution argues that one form can somehow magically turn into another form. Could you please give an example of such a proposed transformation.
 
lelinator said:
So long as it aligns with the facts as we’re presently capable of understanding them.
Click to expand...
Not trying to be clever but do think it important that we agree on some things in order that either may refer to these points as agreed upon when our theories diverge.

Do you agree with the following prior post (no one responded before).
o_mlly said:
Reasonable minds agree:
  • that all scientific hypotheses and theories are not facts.
  • that science may only appeal to natural causes to explain observable effects.
  • that effects that have no natural cause will never be explained by science.
  • that nevertheless, science must put forward [the best] possible natural explanations as explanatory of observed events, even if those hypotheses are improbable but merely possible.
  • that the value of a scientific hypothesis lies in to what degree does that hypothesis provide man to control nature.
Click to expand...
lelinator said:
It would at least be nice to know at which end of the spectrum your beliefs lie
Click to expand...
I’m OK with employing the time frame used in macroevolution although I have asked before and not received an answer. That is, what time frame (range in years) or range in number of microevolutions are predicted in order to evidence a macroevolution?
 
o_mlly said:
Do you agree with the following prior post (no one responded before).
40.png
o_mlly:
Reasonable minds agree:
  • that all scientific hypotheses and theories are not facts.
  • that science may only appeal to natural causes to explain observable effects.
  • that effects that have no natural cause will never be explained by science.
  • that nevertheless, science must put forward possible natural explanations as explanatory of observed events, even if those hypotheses are improbable but merely possible.
  • that the value of a scientific hypothesis lies in to what degree does that hypothesis provide man to control nature.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
After careful consideration I find your premises to be completely invalid, misleading, and irrelevant. So no, I don’t agree. To engage in any further discussion on the matter would be counterproductive.

If that means that this discussion is over…so be it.

But I still have no idea what your concept of the theory of evolution, and the origin of species actually is. It seems to be a question that you’re incapable of answering.
 
lelinator said:
After careful consideration I find your premises to be completely invalid, misleading, and irrelevant. So no, I don’t agree. To engage in any further discussion on the matter would be counterproductive.

If that means that this discussion is over…so be it.

But I still have no idea what your concept of the theory of evolution, and the origin of species actually is. It seems to be a question that you’re incapable of answering.
Click to expand...
Another one bites the dust. All of them are “invalid, misleading, and irrelevant”? Didn’t you post you were with Freddy on this. It appears you have abandoned him as well.
Freddy said:
Indeed. That’s why we don’t describe proposals, hypotheses and theories as facts.
Click to expand...
Of course, you may bailout. Your exiting hardly indicates an inability on my part to express a theory but certainly implies your unwillingness or, more likely, your inability to defend yours which is completely understandable. You made a good choice, here.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
Another one bites the dust. All of them are “invalid, misleading, and irrelevant”? Didn’t you post you were with Freddy on this. It appears you have abandoned him as well.
Click to expand...
Quite the contrary, I’m in complete agreement with Freddy on this one. Scientific theories shouldn’t be misconstrued as facts, they never claim to be. Which is why that particular premise is irrelevant.

Just as an aside, divine revelations and personal beliefs aren’t facts either. But there’s one huge difference, scientists are willing to admit that their theories aren’t facts, theists on the other hand are generally quite reticent to admit to the same fallibility.
o_mlly said:
Your exiting hardly indicates an inability on my part to express a theory
Click to expand...
Of course not, it’s the fact you haven’t actually presented a theory that indicates your inability to do so.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
Your exiting hardly indicates an inability on my part to express a theory
Click to expand...
You may think that I’m simply being close-minded, and that I’m therefore incapable of considering alternative theories. But that simply isn’t the case.

For example, @buffalo’s idea of archetypes actually has some merit. The features that we find in animals today almost certainly owe their existence to their historical “archetypes”. For example, there are features that distinguish mammals from fish, and this is most likely due to the differences present in their respective historic “archetypes”. One archetype giving rise to mammals, and the other giving rise to fish.

Where I question @buffalo’s theory is in the age, and nature of these archetypes. I would argue that they actually arose quite early in biological history, many millions of years ago. The evidence, in my opinion, supports this assumption. But I’m open to any comprehensive evidence to the contrary. I believe that @buffalo actually ascribes to a much more recent timing for these supposed archetypes, but thus far I find his evidence to range from questionable to nonexistent.

It’s one thing to assail someone else’s theory, but it’s quite another thing to present your own. Kudos to @buffalo for at least making the attempt.
 
Evolution from one kind of animal to another is not evidenced in the fossil record.
Adaption within species is evidenced.
It is quite clear if you read all I wrote.
Exalting human reasoning in speculative philosophical reasoning for unproven theories is nothing new.
Some replace the need for our Benevolent non contingent Being - GOD with these humankind reasoned wise in our own eyes as somehow better.
It isn’t a crime to examine creation. But the resulting callousness toward the Sanctity of human beings is a crime, and completely unethical.
Judge a tree by it’s fruit is one of the things Jesus The Beloved Anointed One (Christ) taught us. And we all meet GOD in the hereafter, whether someone chooses to be wise in their own eyes denying the existence of GOD or not.
Humanity cannot change Eternal truth in this Valley of Decision, Baca(tears), Shadow of death - some of the terms The Holy Bible describes the world we live within. Peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top