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.
PickyPicky said:
40.png
Uriel1:
and as we read, “Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on a very few facts.” Halton C. Arp, et al., The Extra Galactic Universe p 8
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with evolution.
Click to expand...
Oh it does my friend. Without abiogenesis, it leaves Genesis as the only plausible explanation
 
Uriel1 said:
Oh it does my friend. Without abiogenesis, it leaves Genesis as the only plausible explanation
Click to expand...
“only”? Hardly. There is the Nihon-gi, the Bhagavad Gita, Guru Granth Sahib and many other equally plausible explanations.

You are assuming what you have to prove.

rossum
 
No, my friend

I quoted two pieces to be taken together

I am astonished that you think that “the fossil and geological records reveal an overall picture of evolution”
  1. "Take some matter (where did that come from), heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The “fundamental” forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are PRESUMED to have done the rest. (emphasis mine) But how much of this neat tale is firmly established and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment." Scott A., New Scientist vol 106 p 30
  1. “Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on a very few facts.” Halton C. Arp, et al., The Extra Galactic Universe p 812
Meantime atheistic science, by denying God would have us accept death, which Jesus overcame on our behalf so that we too can strive for eternal life as sons of God.
 
Last edited:
The starting point is Genesis, the Inspired Word of God, which says that God made everything according to its kind, through Jesus

You obviously have trouble with that and seem to support evolution, so tell us how you think life started.
 
Uriel1 said:
Ah, but it an integral part, and Darwin discussed it “in his warm little pond” letter
Click to expand...
No, it is not an integral part. The theory of evolution stands or falls on its own evidential strength.

Perhaps you should start a thread “Why You Should Believe Abiogenesis Could Not Happen” or “ Why You Should Believe Fr Lemâitre Didn’t Know What He Was Talking About”. Then you could concentrate in this thread on the theory of evolution.
 
PickyPicky said:
40.png
Uriel1:
Ah, but it an integral part, and Darwin discussed it “in his warm little pond” letter
Click to expand...
No, it is not an integral part. The theory of evolution stands or falls on its own evidential strength.

Perhaps you should start a thread “Why You Should Believe Abiogenesis Could Not Happen” or “ Why You Should Believe Fr Lemâitre Didn’t Know What He Was Talking About”. Then you could concentrate in this thread on the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...
If you think evolution is true you surely must have an idea of how the first life started. Tell me that and I will move on to scientifically destroy your evidence for evolution
 
Uriel1 said:
If you think evolution is true you surely must have an idea of how the first life started. Tell me that and I will move on to scientifically destroy your evidence for evolution
Click to expand...
This thread is about the Theory of Evolution. I accept that theory because it seems to me to be a coherent and scientific theory, accepted by those qualified to speak about biology. As to the science of how life started, there is no settled theory explaining it, and my views on the matter (if I have them) would be worthless.

In any case you don’t need my opinion, just press on, get back on topic, and scientifically destroy the evidence for the Theory of Evolution.
 
Trust us. It started. Now let’s skip over to the evolution part.

Where did my car come from? I mean, who invented it?
 
Techno2000 said:
So you don’t see how some of us could have a problem with this ?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. I see that you think the Theory of Evolution is about the creation events of Genesis, is an attack on Genesis, is an alternative story to the creation story told in Genesis. You think it reasonable therefore to demand that it cover all the creation events of Genesis, that if it does not cover all those events, that shows a fatal weakness in the theory.

But it is not an alternative to the creation events of Genesis: Genesis is a religious statement, the theory is a scientific statement. They do not contradict each other, they do not even exist within the same field of study.

There is no reason for the Theory of Evolution to cover the origin of life. It deals with speciation. The origin of life has no settled theory: scientists are still trying to form and test their hypotheses.

There are plenty of unsolved scientific questions, of course, thanks be. The origin of life on Earth is one of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top