Evolution and Creationism

[Noose001]

Are you saying that there are no fish that can live outside of water?

We have fish that can live outside water; such a fish has what it takes to survive both in and out of the water. If we assume that such fish had an ancestor who could only live in water and changes happened over a period of time, then we are faced by an impossible task of explaining how these changes are possible.

Evolution doesn’t offer such explanations, it only assumes and then offers superficial explanation about there being distant and close cousins.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, it shows a lot.
Of course, you don’t mean scientific theory in general.
At least, I hope this is the case, because some empirical scientific theory
has evidence that does prove things such as atoms exist.
~
Just the widespread almost acceptance as taught to youth and impressible
the drastic unproven evolutionary theories that make leaps of supposition
and assertion without empirical evidence.
~
As stated before, compared to faith and reason conclusion by historic testimony
regarding Jesus The Beloved Divine Anointed One,
(i.e. Lee Strobel went on a two year journey convinced he would disprove
the Resurrection, but found enough even scarce extra-Biblical testimonies,
during the early centuries when expensive writing was expensive,
and the Roman world considered Christianity a small ‘troublesome sect,’

• often burned the writings of The Church - besides torturing and brutally
  killing Christians for not conforming - which helped him receive Divine Favor
  to know to be the truth the strongest meaning of believe not just
  almost totally think it’s true - that JESUS Rose on The Third Day.)
  ~
  Human understanding of our own Salvation history rests on credible testimonies; and testimonies of miracles witnessed by others.
  They still happen today. There will always be scoffers who rely
  on limited human intellect and speculations of existence with a sense
  of human pride to justify their suppositions, like ‘blind faith’ in drastically
  unproven evolutionary theory as some type of explanation for existence.
  One of the fruits of such widespread dissimulation of this, especially,
  the crafty intellectual elitist philosophies that no GOD is needed;
  is the unethical greatly diminished respect for the Sanctity of human life;
  with an atrocity so extensive tens of thousands of children are murdered
  every single week as expendable. One thing for sure, only GOD judges
  hearts, and JESUS spoke of those without knowledge or informed conscience,
  impartially known to GOD as to would not have done unethical things,
  can be forgiven by GOD. But JESUS also said, woe to those who lead astray,
  and to whom much is given much is required.
  ~

I only added a response because of concern for others because of faith and reason knowing to be the truth the strongest form of the use of believe of Lord JESUS Savior coming down from Heaven for those who receive Divine Favor, for The Way, The Truth, and The Life for Heaven.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

The scientific method lives on, but I’m not making a scientific argument.
~
Evolutionists which assert that GOD is not necessary or GOD is some distant
Souce are totally far from making a credible case based on evidence
attainable using the scientific method. And the philosophical suppositions,
have no credible explanation for how things came into existence.
Only a circuitous poor use of logic, that creation was always here,
to accept it on blind faith, regardless that it does not explain the existence
of the problem of evil with so much unearned suffering.
~
Just some fatalistic empathy, naturally inducing a sense of less empathy to strive for the ideal of justice(the common ordered good & welfare) for everyone coming into the world the same exact way each of us did. The blind faith in leaps of these type of philosophical arguments fall so short of a sense of grasping the meaning of existence.
~
Way short of GOD, coming as GOD’s own Son, One in Being with GOD, name JESUS - to separate The Light from The Darkness; so when The Second Coming Happens (alongside each person meeting GOD, to be shown
their particular judgment after this life, as to accepting Divine Favor or not
by The Divine Merits of JESUS The Anointed One, Who Came as Suffering Servant the first time in Son of God Majesty.)
With a deep concern for neighbor, I pray every day for more to receive Divine Favor to know JESUS explicitly, and for those still not in a relationship with The Savior of humanity explicitly,
not to have some full act of prideful human will, to conform their inner disposition as opposed to the True GOD and GOD’s Ways as to be incapable
of receiving Divine Favor. JESUS taught narrow is the way to Life, but also,
said His Yoke which GOD Gladly Self-Giving helps each of us carry the yoke,
of the willing - is easy by GOD’s All-Powerful Benevolent Humility.
The Merits of JESUS gives thankful strength to endure unearned suffering,
and true deep concern for the common good for everyone coming through the womb.
~
There is enough evidence for atoms which started as a theory.
The Catholic Answers article, which must have involved the GOD given dignity
of much human intellectual research and work, show just how
drastically speculative without empirical evidence, evolutionary theory is.

Evolution

Evolution - Theory that seeks to determine the historical succession of the various species of plants and of animals on our earth. Read more here.

www.catholic.com

~
It seems some of the proponents take leaps of supposition, blind faith if you will expecting others to follow suit, or be considered ignorant of science.
~

 

[whatistrue]

I didn’t say organs loose functionality when they are used for a wrong purpose, they loose functionality when there’s a change within any of the many systems from which it derives its functionality.

Not necessarily. The function may change slightly, possibly becoming more efficient.

For example, a limb will not function if there are changes in the nervous system that support its function.

Again, not necessarily. Might have no noticeable effect, might have a negative effect, might have a positive effect. And BTW, I am not sure that you can call a limb an organ.

So, for there to be a change which allows continued functionality of the limb, the change has to be collaborative in all the essential systems that support its functionality

Nope. Small incremental changes over time, keeping the advantageous and eliminating the disadvantageous based on how well the overall organism survives to reproduce. Evolution in a nutshell.

 

[whatistrue]

This is even worse; small changes in the skeletal system must be accompanied by corresponding small changes in all other systems all along to maintain functionality of the organ

So by that logic a child of a 5’6" father and a 5’4" mother cannot possibly grow up to be 6’2". There is natural variation in the species. The changes we are talking about are on that order in a single generation, and only keep going and develop further if the particular change confers an advantage or is neutral, and only make the changes from a fin to a limb over multiple thousands of generations.

There are no small changes in Physiology or genetics, addition or removal of a single nucleobase from a gene means the protein that will expressed from such a gene will not be functional.

Or will function differently. Or have a completely different function.

 

[whatistrue]

Evolutionists which assert that GOD is not necessary

There may be some individuals who assert that. The theory itself does not.

 

[Noose001]

Not necessarily. The function may change slightly, possibly becoming more efficient.

Again, not necessarily. Might have no noticeable effect, might have a negative effect, might have a positive effect. And BTW, I am not sure that you can call a limb an organ.

Nope. Small incremental changes over time, keeping the advantageous and eliminating the disadvantageous based on how well the overall organism survives to reproduce. Evolution in a nutshell.

Please explain. You can stick to the example of a fin changing to a limb
What are these small changes like? how is final functional structure different from the parent and how can these changes be achieved?

 

[Noose001]

So by that logic a child of a 5’6" father and a 5’4" mother cannot possibly grow up to be 6’2". There is natural variation in the species. The changes we are talking about are on that order in a single generation, and only keep going and develop further if the particular change confers an advantage or is neutral, and only make the changes from a fin to a limb over multiple thousands of generations.

There’s nothing about evolution here. Read Mendel’s hereditary laws; a gene can stay idle in a system but eventually be expressed. No mutations required and it has nothing to do with natural selection.

 

[whatistrue]

Please explain

That was the explanation. If that is insufficient for you, I am sorry but I don’t have time to run a Bio 101 class.

 

[whatistrue]

There’s nothing about evolution here

Really? A fin changing to a limb over multiple thousands of generations is not evolution? Mutation is not the only way that an organism can be changed. Sometimes an outlier variation within the normal range can become the new average over time if it confers an advantage. That is evolution as well. And I have studied Mendel’s work already.

 

[Noose001]

That was the explanation. If that is insufficient for you, I am sorry but I don’t have time to run a Bio 101 class.

That’s what i thought, you have none.

Bio 101; A functioning fin is the one a fish uses for movement in the water, no such thing as a fin changing to be more efficient for movement on land. A fin is a fin because it is efficient in water.

Bio102; A slight change in a functioning (efficient) fin requires coordination and not randomness, otherwise it looses its functionality and efficiency.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

There may be some individuals who assert that. The theory itself does not.

Yes, I know.
However, the theory is very pervasive and presented in such credible terms as so many youth & impressionable testify from today’s secular education system.
The way it’s presented by an infiltrated Church in many Parochial schools, also leaves much to be desired.
I do understand that radical literalist of the Creation theological procession narrative in Genesis, that presents that God is the author of Creation,
present a problem. However, the radical secular humanist and other human logic, using things like the highly speculative theory of evolution & other philosophical ideas that creation always existed, either with some primordial force of charity - or somehow ‘nothing - which means absence of anything’ can be defined as primordial laws and forces of physics → these types of things have an immense bias. And those who adhere to the ‘blind faith’ speculative
assertions, often present the understanding in faith & reason of GOD as Creator as ignorant.
Bishop Robert Barron with Word on Fire, Fr. Robert Spitzer of Magis Center,
and others of the long history of Catholic intellectual tradition are countering this extreme bias in our day. BTW, The Catholic Church started the university system. BTW, Galileo was not punished for his science, but for breaking his promise that he would not print until more evidence was available.

 

[whatistrue]

That’s what i thought, you have none.

Not wanting to take up time in a fruitless endeavor is not the same thing as having no argument. You have made several unfounded assertions about the “impossibility” of the sort of changes that are described and seen in the fossil record. And saying the “it isn’t that it is this” with no foundation other than your bare word isn’t an argument either.

 

[whatistrue]

However, the theory is very pervasive and presented in such credible terms as so many youth & impressionable testify from today’s secular education system.

The theory is credible, and it doesn’t eliminate God. So what is the issue?

BTW, The Catholic Church started the university system. BTW, Galileo was not punished for his science, but for breaking his promise that he would not print until more evidence was available.

Things of which I was already well aware, and that are not relevant to this discussion.

 

[Noose001]

Not wanting to take up time in a fruitless endeavor is not the same thing as having no argument. You have made several unfounded assertions about the “impossibility” of the sort of changes that are described and seen in the fossil record. And saying the “it isn’t that it is this” with no foundation other than your bare word isn’t an argument either.

Evolution is indeed an impossibility, this fact is clear enough and i’m not making assertions, i’m asking questions that you need to answer.

 

[whatistrue]

i’m not making assertions, i’m asking questions that you need to answer.

You asserted that any minor change in a limb and the limb remaining functional was impossible. And I don’t need to answer anything.

 

[Techno2000]

But…if the environment changes from us picking berries (big leg muscles useless) to chasing down game (big leg muscles usefull) then he’s ahead of the game. So he might survive when one of his kin didn’t. So his kids will tend to have the physical attributes that will help *them survive better.

Rinse and repeat.

So a fish that has a fin that is just a tiny bit stronger than other fish if that’s an advantage will survive - all other things being equal - better than one which doesn’t. IF the environment requires it.

This is way too simplified.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

The theory is credible, and it doesn’t eliminate God. So what is the issue?

I presented the issue. How credible it is, is opinion in the face of the empirical evidence. The way it’s presented aids and abets the unlearned testifying that it is fact and not speculative assertions requiring ‘blind faith.’
Whereas, faith & reason of credible testimony of witness of JESUS The Christ,
in history is more evidence of Creationism.
If, evolution happened, there is no empirical evidence. Whereas, The Church has evidence of Eucharistic Miracles, for example.
~
Speculation is not a crime. But when the presentation of it aides and abets youth and impressionable to form a fatalistic form of empathy of others entering into the world through the womb, like each of us did; this falls very short of pursuing the ideals of justice(each human being receiving what is due for an orderly common good.)
The way the speculations of evolution is presented is the problem, and so many conveying to youth that those who present that GOD is Creator as ignorant - so prevalent according to the testimony of many is a very big problem.

 

[Noose001]

You asserted that any minor change in a limb and the limb remaining functional was impossible. And I don’t need to answer anything.

Well, it depends with what you mean by ‘minor’ and what you mean by ‘more efficient’.
Like, your hands are used for grabbing, what minor changes will make your hands ‘more efficient’ in grabbing?

 

[whatistrue]

testifying that it is fact and not speculative assertions requiring ‘blind faith.’

It is neither of those things. No scientific theory can ever be proven as “fact”, and speculation is more on the level of hypothesis than theory.

Speculation is not a crime. But when the presentation of it aides and abets youth and impressionable to form a fatalistic form of empathy of others entering into the world through the womb, like each of us did; this falls very short of pursuing the ideals of justice(each human being receiving what is due for an orderly common good.)

I don’t even know what the point of this is, and I am not sure that I want to.