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

[rossum]

Is an unborn baby a transitional form?

It is a half-transitional, in that it has some characteristics of it ancestral species, for example it has mitochondria, which go back to the ancestral eukaryote from which is is distantly descended. However, since there are, as yet, no successor species, we cannot tell whether or not it shares any characteristics with those successors.

rossum

 

[William_Scott]

Here are a couple of articles from those crazy guys over at Creation.com

Quick Final Clarification: when I say crazy, I mean crazy extremists who believe that God’s Word is true even when Dawkins says it isn’t.

Have a great week everyone, and keep evolving…

 

[Bradskii]

Now that’s funny as a “roast”. The problem in responding with laughter is that, unlike your post, unless the person is in on the joke, it is ridicule.

A comment such as made by Buffalo could only raise a disbelieving guffaw. It’s not credible that he cannot understand what a transitional means in the context of evolution. And I really mean that it is not credible. And to indicate that by asking if an unborn child is a transitional just leaves me…well, bemused is not strong enough a word.

And then what do you do? You roll with the question without blinking an eyelid rather than dismissing it as nonsense and carry on to write a chunky paragraph about…well, I didn’t read it past the first line. But you are not likely to get anyone to read something when it is based on nonsense in the first instance.

 

[buffalo]

A comment such as made by Buffalo could only raise a disbelieving guffaw.

It was in response to your house post. Think it through.

 

[Hope1960]

I can’t tell you about it, because I’ll be accused of Quote mining.

What’s Quote mining?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

A comment such as made by Buffalo could only raise a disbelieving guffaw.

It was in response to your house post. Think it through.

I thought it through sufficiently when I wrote it.

Again, if you have a point (which I doubt), then make it.

 

[Hope1960]

There are hundreds of different species of crayfish, forming a Superfamily, the Astacoidea. This is a new species, so it is macroevolution.

I know Catholics are allowed to believe in
micro evolution, but are we Catholics forbidden to believe in macro evolution, or is that also allowed?

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

I can’t tell you about it, because I’ll be accused of Quote mining.

What’s Quote mining?

Taking a Quote out of context to make a point.
Here just read these and tell us what you think:

Fossil Record​

https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/fossil-record/

 

[rossum]

What’s Quote mining?

Quoting an authority, usually one respected by your opponent, in a misleading way. For example:

The Bible says “There is no God”.

That quote is technically correct, but it is highly misleading because the quote has left out an important part of the original:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God”

There is a long list of common creationist quotemines on the TalkOrigins website. Quotemining is a common creationist tactic; they do very little scientific research themselves, so they have to make real science, and scientists, appear to agree with them.

rossum

 

[Hope1960]

This is a philosophy forum. If you want to know more about the science, might I suggest you read or take a class. I think the arguments have been made, and I don’t know what would constitute proof for you. I think it obvious that evolution is wrong and as obscure my reasoning might be, I personally have done my best to explain that view. If this matter is as important to you as your posts suggest to me, and equally to the inter-denominational church you are considering to attend, you might wish to consider refraining from doing so. You may end up just upsetting yourself and them. It’s your business, believe what you want and do what you will; I just wanted to bring it back to what we are doing here. May Jesus walk with you in your search.

So, your answer is that you can’t prove your side, either. Anyone else?

 

[Hope1960]

Rossum, do you believe in God?

 

[Hope1960]

Here just read these and tell us what you think:

I’ll read it later when I have time to read it without interruptions. We’re going out to dinner in awhile and it’s a pretty long article.

 

[buffalo]

but are we Catholics forbidden to believe in macro evolution, or is that also allowed?

A couple of thoughts by Pope Benedict XVI

“Science fiction exists, on the other hand, in the ambit of many sciences. That which you explain about theories concerning the beginning and the end of the world in Heisenberg, Schrödinger, etc., I would designate as science fiction in the good sense of that phrase: they are visions and anticipations, in order to reach a true knowledge, but they are also, precisely, only imaginations with which we seek to come close to reality. There indeed exists, science fiction in a grand style, for instance, within the theory of evolution. The “selfish gene” of Richard Dawkins is a classic example of science fiction.”

---

Pope Benedict’s Easter Homily - Creative Reason​

“The creation account tells us, then,that the world is a product of creative Reason.” - perhaps the pope would like IDvolution. Pope Benedict: Easter brings us to the side of reason, freedom and love “It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason.”

---

 

[Hope1960]

Again, that really doesn’t answer my question.

 

[buffalo]

What false predictions tell us about evolution​

Loading…

sites.google.com

 

[Edgar]

If you have read any Hans Christian Anderson’s tales then you will know that they are stories with a message. They go into a lot of detail which keeps one’s attention through to the end and the imagery it conjures up helps to carry the messages. Messages about life. About morality. About doing the right thing.

You forgot to mention one little difference: No one claims Anderson’s tales are factual - in contrast, billions of people believe the Bible contains literal history.

 

[Edgar]

I would certainly contend that humans could never live for 600 or even 900 years. This is the most obvious symbolic detail of all.

If you think people living for 900 years is too far-fetched to be literaly true, what about those stories in the NT about humans rising from the dead?! These resurrection tales are of course “symbolic”, as we all know folks don’t rise from the dead - but many Catholics are so backward and uneducated that they actually believe such tales are true!

 

[edwest]

Excellent. Thank you.

 

[Edgar]

Since the Flood was relatively recent, where is your evidence of this sort of lifespan in the fossil remains of humans pre-Flood and in the immediate post-Flood period. For example, tooth wear after 200 years would be substantially more than tooth wear after 70 years.

If evidence of such tooth-wear can’t be found, this could mean the “genetic health” of those who lived for up to 1000 years was such that their teeth didn’t wear down.

 

[Edgar]

Another way of putting it – would anybody believe humans lived 900 years if it weren’t written in the Bible?

If the Great Pryamids of Egypt didn’t exist but were described in the Bible, lots of skeptics would claim that primitive humans could not possibly have built such structures.