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

[LeafByNiggle]

I think you jumped the gun, there are over a hundred quotes on this site from the experts, all saying the same thing…no transitional fossils !

It would have been more convincing if there were over a hundred quotes of appropriate experts who concluded that evolution of species is not true.

 

[Techno2000]

<<<<<<<<As each new fossil is uncovered, always ask – what gap does the fossil fill? Previously unknown species are discovered regularly – but, rarely is there any mention of how the new discovery solves Darwin’s enduring fossil record dilemma.>>>>>>>>>

From your link: Note the word “rarely”.

Fossil research continues to be massively funded by the evolution industry more than 150 years since the publication of The Origin of Species .

As each new fossil is uncovered, always ask – what gap does the fossil fill? Previously unknown species are discovered regularly – but, rarely is there any mention of how the new discovery solves Darwin’s enduring fossil record dilemma.

Since the stunning number of the expected “innumerable” transitional links is still missing, rather than demonstrating compatibility with evolution – as Darwin envisioned, the fossil record demonstrates greater compatibility with the Genesis account.

Whatever is mentioned of how the new discovery solves Darwin’s enduring fossil record dilemma…is pure speculation.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

I think you jumped the gun, there are over a hundred quotes on this site from the experts, all saying the same thing…no transitional fossils !

It would have been more convincing if there were over a hundred quotes of appropriate experts who concluded that evolution of species is not true.

I could probably find a hundred quotes saying that, but you would dismiss them as coming from YEC people.

 

[Hope1960]

It’s very important to atheists, as they believe it vindicates their godless beliefs. The scientific community appears to be some kind of God-phobic cult, and their antiChrist beliefs have unfortunately filtered down to and contaminated the unsuspecting and gullible masses.

So, in your opinion, any Catholic who respects science is an atheist?

 

[edwest]

Evolution does not comprise all science. There is no scientific application for it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Techno2000:

I think you jumped the gun, there are over a hundred quotes on this site from the experts, all saying the same thing…no transitional fossils !

It would have been more convincing if there were over a hundred quotes of appropriate experts who concluded that evolution of species is not true.

I could probably find a hundred quotes saying that, but you would dismiss them as coming from YEC people.

Well, I would insist they all be scientists in the appropriate fields, otherwise why should I respect their opinion as authoritative?

 

[Bradskii]

rossum:

Fine. We have DNA sequences going that far back as well.

We’re talking about people who lived more than 5000 years ago (ie, before the Flood). How can science know what human DNA was like then? And how do they know DNA sequencing is accurate to 5000 years ago?

I don’t know anything about DNA sequencing. What is it?

I don’t have a comment. I just wanted to repost it. It was too good not too. Well done, Ed.

And Buffalo…you need to up your game. Ed is making a play for the Kut ‘n’ Paste King.

 

[Edgar]

Why is history important? It’s a part of our story.

First of all - nice straw man.

Secondly, history is fine if it can be confirmed. The story that humans evolved from bacteria, however, cannot be confirmed. As far as I can work out, it’s a tale from atheist folklore.

 

[Edgar]

One can only conclude there are posters here who consider themselves to be greater experts than those featured in the quotes.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As far as I can work out, it’s a tale from atheist folklore.

Ad Hominem. If you can tag it as coming from an atheist that is enough to disbelieve it.

 

[Edgar]

Good question! Once upon a time the Martyrology of the Catholic Church would have been considered a definitive Church teaching on the date of Adam’s creation, but now it’s dismissed as the work of ignorant and backward souls.

 

[Edgar]

Ad Hominem. If you can tag it as coming from an atheist that is enough to disbelieve it.

Not quite: As a Catholic, I’d be a fool not to be deeply suspicious of anything an atheist claims about the origin and history of life.

 

[Edgar]

<<<<<<<<As each new fossil is uncovered, always ask – what gap does the fossil fill? Previously unknown species are discovered regularly – but, rarely is there any mention of how the new discovery solves Darwin’s enduring fossil record dilemma.>>>>>>>>>.From your link: Note the word “rarely”.

“rarely” - probably because the new discovery - despite being a previously unknown species - doesn’t in fact help solve Darwin’s enduring fossil record.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Ad Hominem. If you can tag it as coming from an atheist that is enough to disbelieve it.

Not quite: As a Catholic, I’d be a fool not to be deeply suspicious of anything an atheist claims about the origin and history of life.

There is a difference between being deeply suspicious and tossing out a claim without consideration. Actually, in all things scientific, scientists are by their very training suspicious of claims and should (and do) insist on testing everything. So if we want to act like scientists we should also be deeply suspicious of scientific claims - whether they are made by an atheist or are made by the pope.

 

[Edgar]

It would have been more convincing if there were over a hundred quotes of appropriate experts who concluded that evolution of species is not true.

You miss the point: The experts believe in evolution DESPITE what the fossil record says.

 

[edwest]

Strange that the Pope is only quoted when he appears to agree but not when he doesn’t.

 

[Edgar]

So, in your opinion, any Catholic who respects science is an atheist?

That’s a false conclusion, but what fascinating logic.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It would have been more convincing if there were over a hundred quotes of appropriate experts who concluded that evolution of species is not true.

You miss the point: The experts believe in evolution DESPITE what the fossil record says.

And what does that tell you? Is it:

1. The experts are all full of hooey, or
2. Maybe the experts understand something about what the fossil record should be that I don’t.

 

[Edgar]

Evolution does not comprise all science. There is no scientific application for it.

Darwin’s tree of common descent - never has so much been said about something so useless.

 

[Edgar]

There is a difference between being deeply suspicious and tossing out a claim without consideration.

My comment wasn’t made wihout consideration - Satan uses atheists to spread lies and nonsense designed to undermine the Faith.

Actually, in all things scientific, scientists are by their very training suspicious of claims and should (and do) insist on testing everything.

“It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.”
Colin Patterson, from a letter written to Luther Sunderland, 1979