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.
It’s quite OK for you to believe that, whether it’s right or wrong. And it’s quite OK for me to believe the opposite, whether it’s right or wrong.

As it happens, I’m right.
Firstly I do like the fact that we can disagree over this and it doesn’t harm our salvation.

Secondly, evolution is wrong.
 
Wrong again -

“Rather, our analyses indicate that mitochondria evolved from a proteobacterial lineage that branched off before the divergence of all sampled alphaproteobacteria. In light of this new result, previous hypotheses on the nature of the mitochondrial ancestor6,15,16 should be re-evaluated.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0059-5

“Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.”
Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” Nature

What I have been saying - It is thus “outside empirical science”
 
Last edited:
Take it up with the author.
Oh no, buddy. I am taking it up directly with you. You don’t get to slink off and bleat ‘it wasn’t me, someone else did it before I got here’. That’s schoolyard level arguments.

You obviously don’t read what you post and I doubt if you’d understand most of it even if you did. And yet you stand by it until someone points out that you are not even wrong on some of the most basic tenets of evolutionary theory and then whimper ‘take it up with the guy who wrote it - I just cut and pasted it’. Without, I would add, not even having the courtesy to put it in quotes.

You’re going to need a new keybkard soon. The Ctrl, C and P keys must be on their last legs.
 
And yet you stand by it until someone points out that you are not even wrong on some of the most basic tenets of evolutionary theory
Such as?

It must bother you that the Ctrl, C and P keys keep putting the issues with evolution front and center. It is for the benefit of the folks.

The paint is not worn off yet, but soon. 😀
 
Last edited:
Which of his fraud claims do evo’s admit to. Are there any?
Of course. All the frauds discovered and exposed by evolutionists are readily admitted to. That’s how science works, and how it weeds out the occasional bad apple. What a pity Creationist fraud is simply swallowed hook. line and sinker by its enslaved adherents.
 
Where does LOVE come from?
In the beginning… chemicals realized that they had to get along and stop fighting each other, so one day they formed the bond of brotherly chemicals.Through this mutual love, the first loving bacteria was produced,God saw that it was good, and blessed this bacteria… and the rest is evolutionary history.
 
40.png
Nelka:
So you believe man got here via bacteria, apes etc.?
Yes, of course.
Do you think God first experimented with growing us in a petri dish?
 
So while one might not want to take evolution as fact, i think one can think that it is the most likely origin of species when compared to the biblical 7 day creation explanation…
But, what is the defense for evolution, the argument for it?

The argument for evolution is no doubt a winning argument against fundamental Christian’s. But is hardly an argument against the One, Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church.

For she never opposed the sciences, as long as they never placed people in danger.

From the science and feat of the flying buttresses from Rome, in building architecture, to sea travel, which brought the feat of Saint Francis Xavier. From architecture of Church buildings to the sextant and compass, which She never opposed. She even preserved herself, the arts. So nothing she has said or did opposed the natural sciences. Her argument, however, is that man is made for more. And second, he is not like any of the creatures, in beauty and in intelligence. We also have to surmise, among the other creatures that inhabit our world, have nothing like faith, hopes, dreams, and desires. From poetic love messages that run deeper than a mating ritual and a mating call, to romantic plays as Romeo and Juliet. None of the other creatures suffice. Which is a good argument why that link is still missing.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey believes our real enlightenment came after 1967 and Vatican II. This was the expiration date for the “old” teachings.
 
Hugh_Farey believes our real enlightenment came after 1967 and Vatican II. This was the expiration date for the “old” teachings.
No. Evolutionist enlightenment came in 1859, with a paradigm shift that continues to brighten with every succeeding year. The self-correcting process of science has probed and examined the new model from that year to this, refining it to fit closer and closer to observations old and new, so that nothing published in the 20th century can be guaranteed to represent the modern consensus, or even to express modern controversies,

Creationists lack enlightenment altogether.
 
Outright lie.
When I call people liars, I explain carefully to my fellow readers why, so that they do not accuse me of random abuse. Thus Evolutionists achieve the moral, as well as the scientific high ground over their Creationist antagonists…
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top