B
buffalo
Guest
Oh yes there is. Evolution is not empirical and is a religion.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
That is purpose and design.
B
buffalo
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
Right, it is best to avoid it.
R
rossum
Guest
Usually called Brahma, or Mahabrahma. There are tens of thousands of Buddhist gods, so I may have the wrong one.
Yes, if you really want to. Be aware that all Buddhist gods are impermanent, so you won’t be the most powerful for ever, just for a very long time.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
WOuld I be able to debunk evo once and for all? lol
B
buffalo
Guest
Stratigraphic signatures of mass extinctions: ecological and sedimentary determinants
Stratigraphic distribution of extant species demonstrates that
interactions between ecological preferences of organisms and
processes of sediment accumulation produce systematic
changes in occurrence rates and sampling probabilities of
taxa along a sedimentary succession. The resulting nonrandom
truncation of stratigraphic ranges leads to clustering
of LOs at specific sequence stratigraphic positions distorting
the relative chronology of species extinctions. Such patterns
can easily confound interpretations of the timing, duration
and ecological selectivity of mass extinction events. Importantly,
the effects of these eco-stratigraphic processes cannot
be removed by methods that correct the Signor –Lipps
effect under a model of uniform preservation and recovery
of fossils.
Research strategies that account for the effects of stratigraphic
architecture are data-intensive and rely on placing
fossil occurrences in a rigorous palaeoenvironmental and
sequence stratigraphic framework. They also typically require
integration of data across multiple sections or sedimentary
basin, thus often sacrificing temporal and spatial resolution.
These challenges imposed by the nature of the stratigraphic
record must be acknowledged and addressed before highresolution
reconstructions of past extinction dynamics are
attempted. However, more conservative interpretations of
the stratigraphic distribution of fossil taxa will maximize the
accuracy of palaeobiological interpretations and reduce
the risk of using false extinction patterns to formulate and
test eco-evolutionary hypotheses.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsb/285/1886/20181191.full.pdf
Stratigraphic distribution of extant species demonstrates that
interactions between ecological preferences of organisms and
processes of sediment accumulation produce systematic
changes in occurrence rates and sampling probabilities of
taxa along a sedimentary succession. The resulting nonrandom
truncation of stratigraphic ranges leads to clustering
of LOs at specific sequence stratigraphic positions distorting
the relative chronology of species extinctions. Such patterns
can easily confound interpretations of the timing, duration
and ecological selectivity of mass extinction events. Importantly,
the effects of these eco-stratigraphic processes cannot
be removed by methods that correct the Signor –Lipps
effect under a model of uniform preservation and recovery
of fossils.
Research strategies that account for the effects of stratigraphic
architecture are data-intensive and rely on placing
fossil occurrences in a rigorous palaeoenvironmental and
sequence stratigraphic framework. They also typically require
integration of data across multiple sections or sedimentary
basin, thus often sacrificing temporal and spatial resolution.
These challenges imposed by the nature of the stratigraphic
record must be acknowledged and addressed before highresolution
reconstructions of past extinction dynamics are
attempted. However, more conservative interpretations of
the stratigraphic distribution of fossil taxa will maximize the
accuracy of palaeobiological interpretations and reduce
the risk of using false extinction patterns to formulate and
test eco-evolutionary hypotheses.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsb/285/1886/20181191.full.pdf
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
I have to pipe up and say that as a Catholic I am embarrassed that you’re encountering such passionate advocates of fundamentalist Protestant pseudoscience on a Catholic forum. Rest assured that the mainstream Church takes no issue with modern science.
W
WileyC1949
Guest
Yes. As I said I agree. It is just the phrase “Intelligent Design” is one which has been hijacked by fundamentalists to refer to instantaneous creation. Terms similar to “Divine Guidance” allow for evolution which has been guided by God.
B
buffalo
Guest
It has been standard Catholic Dogma since the beginning.
E
edwest211
Guest
There’s nothing Protestant about this. Next, do not use emotion words like embarrass. Finally, The Church has the full, complete truth, not science.
R
rossum
Guest
Thank you. Yes, I am aware of Humani Generis and other Catholic documents which allow a lot of space for science. It seems to me that the Catholic Church is very aware of its history: Bruno, Galileo and so on. It has learned that in material things science is unbeatable, so it avoids fights with science. American Fundamentalist Protestantism appears not to have learned that lesson (or to have forgotten it).
As you say, some Catholics seem to be following an unwise path.
rossum
A
Aloysium
Guest
Pretty much all three.
This is how the illusion is constructed, beginning with the definition of an animal stated in only physical terms; human beings sharing in those characteristics are then considered to be animals.
But, we are a totally different kind of being.
What is ignored Is that which is outside of the realm of the physical, but includes the physical as well as the psychological, that dimension in which we find the the soul, that which binds all those components into one relational unity - the metaphysical/spiritual/ontological/existential.
We manipulate matter to understand what it does and build things like this computer. Through scientific disciplines such as physics and chemistry we are able to tease out the inner material workings of organic forms, which help us in agriculture and medicine. A problem arises in the generalization of those findings about the components, to the far more complex systems, that are living things in themselves.
If we don’t focus on the reality of what something is, but rather on it’s physical appearance, we can’t be but led astray and end up with the illusion that a man is a species of animal. In the same way, evolution is an illusory human construct which does not conform to the reality of how things come and originally came into being.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
I think that you have now invalidated any claims that you might have had to be treated seriously.
I find that it is beneficial in some discussions to step the argument back to a point where both parties can reach agreement and then move onwards from that point. And there is ALWAYS a point where agreement can be reached.
In this case, what you have essentially been presented with is this:
‘Here is an animal. We can both agree that it is such.’
And that is about as basic as one could possibly get in a discussion about taxonomy. It is simply not possible to ‘step that back’ any further. We are at a position where the statement could almost be said to be axiomatic. And yet you reject it.
Now I’ve got two reasons why you have done so. Firstly because your arguments, such as they are, are so insubstantial that you can find someway to deny even the most basic of propositions. Your position is so far removed from what anyone else might consider to be a reasonably focussed representation of reality that it allows you to make nonsensical statements that are incoherant to anyone attempting to follow your line of reasoning. I’m sure that if someone said that ‘water is wet’ we’d get some stream of consciousness post debating the metaphysical meaning of the term ‘wet’.
This allows you to avoid making any statements that can be challenged by any reasonable means. Debating with some on this forum, and especially on threads such as this one, is like herding cats. But at least you have something to herd. But with you it’s all smoke and mirrors. There’s nothing of any substance there.
And secondly, if someone brings something basic to the table to get an initial point of agreement (we can all agree that this is an animal) then you take pause, consider the direction that the discussion might go, realise that it will dismantle your position and you shamelessly refuse to accept even the most basic of facts. It’s the debating equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears so you don’t have to address the comments.
I find that it is beneficial in some discussions to step the argument back to a point where both parties can reach agreement and then move onwards from that point. And there is ALWAYS a point where agreement can be reached.
In this case, what you have essentially been presented with is this:
‘Here is an animal. We can both agree that it is such.’
And that is about as basic as one could possibly get in a discussion about taxonomy. It is simply not possible to ‘step that back’ any further. We are at a position where the statement could almost be said to be axiomatic. And yet you reject it.
Now I’ve got two reasons why you have done so. Firstly because your arguments, such as they are, are so insubstantial that you can find someway to deny even the most basic of propositions. Your position is so far removed from what anyone else might consider to be a reasonably focussed representation of reality that it allows you to make nonsensical statements that are incoherant to anyone attempting to follow your line of reasoning. I’m sure that if someone said that ‘water is wet’ we’d get some stream of consciousness post debating the metaphysical meaning of the term ‘wet’.
This allows you to avoid making any statements that can be challenged by any reasonable means. Debating with some on this forum, and especially on threads such as this one, is like herding cats. But at least you have something to herd. But with you it’s all smoke and mirrors. There’s nothing of any substance there.
And secondly, if someone brings something basic to the table to get an initial point of agreement (we can all agree that this is an animal) then you take pause, consider the direction that the discussion might go, realise that it will dismantle your position and you shamelessly refuse to accept even the most basic of facts. It’s the debating equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears so you don’t have to address the comments.
A
Aloysium
Guest
This illustrates a basic problem where the word has so many meanings and connotations that any discussion about the matter can quickly become absurd.
The first pillar of evolutionary theory is randomness. While any random event occurs as a result of an underlying order (a coin or die, spinning and falling on one side) the result is haphazard, the antithesis of a guided result.
Natural selection, as the second pillar of this theory, which we’ve so blindly accepted, is that of natural selection. Clearly, every complex being that comes into existence is composed of simpler elements and is a component in a larger system or environment. But this obvious interrelationship is not the cause of the growing complexity in the hierarchy of life; rather it is a manifestation of the interrelatedness of living beings.
As to guidance, while the term may be used to apply to us, who have a free will and lost in our ignorance, require a guide, our relationship with God is far richer:
With respect to the natural world, “guidance” does not reflect His being Creator. He did more that guide it. He brings it, the totality of all beings, what they are in what they do, how they relate within the whole, He brings all into existence. And more so, in Jesus Christ He became one with it, that it might enter into holy communion within the Trinity, sharing in the glory, returning the love whereby all exists.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Who is it exactly, who is doing this?
B
Bradskii
Guest
You, Al. It’s you. If you cannot accept such an axiomatic statement that effectively says ‘an animal is something we describe as being an animal’ then it’s akin to shutting up shop. Sticking your head in the sand. Or your fingers in your ears.Bradskii:
Who is it exactly, who is doing this?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is not “blindly” accepted. It is tested and it undeniably operates to make inheritable changes.
Now that is an example of blind acceptance.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The general principle of creation has been Catholic Dogma, but the level of specificity you assume in this principle is not and has never been Catholic Dogma.WileyC1949:
It has been standard Catholic Dogma since the beginning.
Last edited:
- Status