Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest211 said:
Next, do not use emotion words like embarrass.
Click to expand...
Why not? If it expresses what the poster feels, then why not say it?
Finally, The Church has the full, complete truth, not science.
Click to expand...
“Full and complete” in the sense of what is necessary for salvation. The Church does not have the full or complete truth regarding the half-life of radium. Of course, knowing the half-life of radium is not essential to salvation, so that is OK.
 
You’re refusing to speak purely on biological terms, which is the only realm in which the term “animal” actually means anything. “Animal” means nothing in the non physical world, so there’s no reason to bring that into the argument.

An equivalent to what you’re trying to do would be this: Bacteria and Squirrels aren’t biologically different because they both have souls that are less than human and aren’t like God.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the purely biological classification of animal. Biology can and does stand apart from the spiritual world. “Animal” has nothing to do with the spiritual, only with biology, so you can’t define “animal” by non-biological terms.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Why not? If it expresses what the poster feels, then why not say it?
Click to expand...
I think I agree. A lot of support for evolution has to do with emotion - the fear of being made fun of. I’d be more concerned about He who knows all and sees the cowardice, rather than the judgement of those who just don’t get it and have no desire to do so.
 
Last edited:
buss0042 said:
You’re refusing to speak purely on biological terms,
Click to expand...
I’m saying the current modern biological interpretation is illusory. The basic science is real - the physics and the chemistry. How it is organized taxonomically, is a distortion of what is. It is like connecting dots in the wrong order because those to which they should join are excluded from the picture. That picture is of creation.
buss0042 said:
An equivalent to what you’re trying to do
Click to expand...
That would be “an equivalent to what I (meaning you) understand” of what I am saying.
buss0042 said:
Biology can and does stand apart from the spiritual world.
Click to expand...
The way it is conceptualized, modern Biology is like looking at reality through a kaleidoscope.

The spiritual as I am using the term has to do with existence, the reality of things as they are as themselves and relate to the rest of everything else. Things that are themselves would include atoms, single cell creatures, fungi, plants, animals and we ourselves. Things fluctuate from being individual to being a part of a greater system - particles and waves.

Each one of us is a person, composed of processes, both psychological and physical, present also within the hierarchy of beings within the universal order, forming a unity, a whole individual being who participates in the rest of creation, united in the larger body of Christ.

The spiritual world is the structure of things in existence; biological beings are one aspect of that structure. The spiritual is that reality that contains the psychological and the material. At the Ground of all being is Existence itself, the eternal Fount of Love, the pure Act through which every moment and every place comes into being.
 
Last edited:
JustLooking said:
40.png
Aloysium:
A lot of support for evolution has to do with emotion - the fear of being made fun of.
Click to expand...
A Person on my side of the argument could just as easily claim that support for ID and creationism also has to do with emotion - the fear of scientific knowledge flying in the face of individually held religious/supernatural opinions.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but I’ve never encountered it, and I’ve read much and spoken to many people during the course of my life. I don’t see anyone who supports creation over evolution here, being afraid of scientificc knowledge. Quit the contrary actually.

Let’s review what initiated this conversation:
twf said:
as a Catholic I am embarrassed that you’re encountering such passionate advocates of fundamentalist Protestant pseudoscience on a Catholic forum
Click to expand...
Why the embarrasment? I can’t imagine someone being embarassed at being affiliated with those who think string theory is hogwash. There is a difference, why? There’s something deeper than pure science at work here. I would contribute the idea that evolution is a modern mythos necessary to justify the values of modern secular society. How btter to guard them but to shame people from questioning its validity.
 
Last edited:
What basis do you have to make the claim that biology is less of a real science than physics and chemistry? Because that’s the single premise that your entire argument is standing on.

Conceptualization has nothing to do what what is real and what is not.

You can’t conceptually explain away physics any more than you can conceptually explain away biology, because both are basic sciences.

Let’s try the formalization again.
  1. If something fits the classifications for being an animal, then it is an animal.
  2. Humans fit these classifications.
  3. Therefore, humans are animals.
This would be equivalent to arguing:
  1. If some shape has 4 sides of equal length and 4 right angles, then it is a square.
  2. This shape has 4 sides of equal length and 4 right angles.
  3. Therefore, this shape is a square.
You could only refute this claim with geometric proofs, not by trying to claim that shapes are illusory. The case is the same with the first argument.

Explain to be, with your own it/then, why both of these arguments are unsound without cascading off into non-biology.
 
I’ m not strictly using Aristotelian terms here, but this just rolled out of my head and I haven’t had a chance to think about it. Talk to you later…
  1. If something exists, then it must have some form that makes it what it is.
  2. If something has a form, it must be comprised of more elemenatry forms.
  3. To classified a thing as being equivalent to its component, is to deny its existence.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
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.
Click to expand...
Eve coming from the side of Adam has been there from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
As you know, its not enough to present an argument of your own; you must refute the arguments I present as well.

Just looking at what you threw down, I don’t know that I would necessarily take premise 2, and premise 3 is a non-sequitur, but I’m sure you know that. It also seems like a ridiculous premise, to then deny its existence. But I realize that’s only spitballing, so no need to go after it.
 
Aloysium said:
  1. If something exists, then it must have some form that makes it what it is.
  2. If something has a form, it must be comprised of more elementary forms.
Click to expand...
3a. God exists.
Click to expand...
How do your 1. and 2. apply to God? God exists so He has a form. What is the form of God? What are the more elementary forms that comprise God’s form?

rossum
 
Aloysium said:
I’ m not strictly using Aristotelian terms here, but this just rolled out of my head and I haven’t had a chance to think about it. Talk to you later…
  1. If something exists, then it must have some form that makes it what it is.
  2. If something has a form, it must be comprised of more elemenatry forms.
  3. To classified a thing as being equivalent to its component, is to deny its existence.
Click to expand...
Who on earth claims that 3 is anywhere near being correct? This is the straw man that you guys are always claiming that you are fighting against but there is no-one arguing that point. Why do you persevere with thjs fallacy?
 
That is the core issue. A perfect fit with the environment needs to be found and a perfect mechanism of action to ensure the organism can survive in the environment.
 
edwest211 said:
That is the core issue. A perfect fit with the environment needs to be found and a perfect mechanism of action to ensure the organism can survive in the environment.
Click to expand...
“Perfect”? No, merely a good enough fit is all that is needed. Given the variation in environments, then a “perfect” fit will be different in daylight and at night; in winter and in summer.

Good enough to survive is enough.

rossum
 
Evolution has parameters that are inconsistent with survival. A life form enters an environment and needs to find whatever nutrients it needs and soon.
 
From Arcanum:

“Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”
 
edwest211 said:
Evolution has parameters that are inconsistent with survival. A life form enters an environment and needs to find whatever nutrients it needs and soon.
Click to expand...
Why do you not get this? You talk like someone just bussed in a whole herd of gazelles into the frozen tundra. This stuff happens over very many years and the changes are too small and too gradual to be visible (with obvious exceptions).

I mean seriously. Why don’t you understand this? How do you think you can argue against something which you obviously can’t grasp?
 
If you would provide me with a logical deductive argument, I would be willing to revise my statement and give my reasons for my new position.

Until then, I’ll just assume that my argument stands and that you don’t have arguments against it or a different argument.
 
Genesis being God’s truth does not equal being historically true.

Genesis being God’s truth does equal being historically true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top