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.
chemicals realized that they had to get along and stop fighting each other, so one day they formed the bond of brotherly chemicals.
šŸ™‚ Ha! I must use ten characters in my response, even though the word I want to use is just two letters.
 
It still begs the question: Why should anyone believe in Evolution? And that has not been answered. Even before we proceed it to be true or not. The question still underlies, why?
Iā€™m not sure this is a meaningful question. Why should anyone believe in anything? Because some model of the world fulfils the need to make sense of it for practical or philosophical purposes. My reason for believing in education is that that I want to make sense of the observations I make of the living world around me and the remains of the living world found in the ground. If you do not want to make sense of the world around you, or have a better explanation that satisfies you, then there is no need to believe it all.
Why should anyone believe it to be true? Not to answer the question and not making the argument insults the intelligence, mind, and will of the person.
This depends what you mean by true. I find evolution a satisfactory explanation for some phenomena. Thatā€™s what subjective truth is. Objective truth may be impossible to obtain, but as long as sufficient numbers have the same objective truth, that will do very well for the time being.
I donā€™t think people have to believe in Evolution.
Fine.
But let me give some reason why people want to try to argue evolution is true. Because, they want to fight silly superstitions.
This may be a reason for ā€˜arguingā€™ evolution, but it cannot be the reason they believe it in the first place You cannot decide that a belief is silly or superstitious unless you have a better alternative belief. Of course, once convinced of the better belief, one may then want to ā€˜argueā€™ for it in order to show other people that it is better than theirs, especially if theirs is harmful.
As they believe Christianity is one of them. They want to de-mystify the story of Creation. And thus, they believe evolution helps with this.
I donā€™t think anybody thinks Christianity as a way of life is silly or superstitious, but they may think that some of its practices are.
Yet, Christianity, which has spanned the centuries, has not done any silly superstitious things.
Well, thatā€™s what you believe. Others may disagree. The Youtube video mentioned on this very site a few days ago, of a good Catholic burglar making the sign of the cross before robbing a house comes to mind.
 
Witch doctors are silly and superstitious.
You should try not to pass value judgements on people who believe something different from you just because you know better than they do. They may have been practising whatever they do for years, to the great comfort and satisfaction of their ā€˜patientsā€™.
New Agism has been more prevalent in a world of atheism than it ever has been. In fact, the brutality of New Agists like Adolf, the Japanese Emperor, Stalin, Nietzche, and Sanger all delved in new age places of belief. And it has been more brutal and worse than classic paganism. The beast, as in Revelation, re-awakens, and is given life through atheism, not Christianity.
I fear youā€™re going completely off the rails here. ā€œNew Agismā€ is a late 20th century western phenomenon that has nothing to do with Hitler, Hirohito, Stalin or the rest. It derives entirely from Christianity, and is in general pacifist. Iā€™m not sure what you meant, but New Agism is not it.
When Christianity made itā€™s departure through the Protestant revolt, it then brought forth and opened the Avenue to Enlightenmentā€¦ [ā€¦]
Forgive me, but I find that the loss of syntactical cohesion in a post frequently reflects a loss of philosophical cohesion in the mind of the poster. I fear your pronouncements from here become too meaningless to be sensibly commented upon. If you want to communicate something, perhaps youā€™d like to restate it in such a manner as to enable the recipient to understand it as clearly as the deliverer.

The rest of your comments appear to be a succession of unjustified rants against atheism. They may be true, but they have nothing to do with evolution.
 
Really? There are no mentions of bad apples in the Bible, only good ones.
More over the important part of what you said was that science DOES weed out the bad apples. And thatā€™s keeping with the meaning of the saying.

Some people come along and see discarded apples and conclude all apples must be rotten, meanwhile the way we determine bad apples is by comparing them to good ones.
 
Is Theistic Evolution Truly Plausible?

The footnote that Pope Pius XII includes here is significant. It is from an address that he himself gave to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1941. Citing this footnote made it part of the official text of Humani Generis. [25] In this address, Pope Pius XII said: ā€œOnly from man could there come another man who would then call him father and ancestor; and the helpmate given by God to the first man came from man himself and is flesh from his flesh, made into a woman and called such because she came from man (Gen 2:23)ā€ (emphasis mine). [26]

Consequently, when Pope Pius XII used the words ā€œpre-existent living matter,ā€ he was carefully distinguishing between natural and special transformationā€”leaving the door open to the latter (with a firm exhortation to exercise the utmost caution), but not to the former. [27] Likewise, Pope John Paul II, in his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences cited these very same words, ā€œpre-existent living matter,ā€ from Pope Pius XII, and thus did not open the already closed door to natural transformism. [28]

http://www.staycatholic.com/is_theistic_evolution_truly_plausible.htm
 
Well, at least it was short! And by its own criteria, entirely plausible. However, since it made no mention whatever of scientific observations, and relied exclusively on documents determined that no evolution, let alone theistic evolution was at all probable, it was hardly a reasoned argument. More an expression of faith. Well fair enough. My faith is different.
 
I donā€™t know what i would have thought 500 years ago. There was a time when people thought the world was flat. Right now the evidence suggests that we are living in a naturally developing universe, and God the builder is not required.
I think there are posters here who believe the earth is flat.
 
ā€œEvolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. "Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religionā€“a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaintā€“and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make itā€“the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.ā€ā€“ Ruse, M., ā€œHow evolution became a religion: creationists correct? Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politicsā€ Michael Ruse

What I have been saying and many denyingā€¦
 
Last edited:
Darwinism as Religion

What Literature Tells Us about Evolution

Michael Ruse

Argues that the theory of evolution given by Charles Darwin in the nineteenth century has always functioned as much as a secular form of religion as anything purely scientific
Through the words of novelists and poets, Michael Ruse argues that Darwin took us from the secure world of Christian faith into a darker, less friendly world of chance and lack of meaning
An accessible and entertaining guide through a serious topic


(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Some of you make the objections to Christianity way to easy.
And thatā€™s why itā€™s important for to say the ā€œevolution is hereticalā€ crowd is wrong and explain that evolution and science can be compatible with faith.
 
ā€œMacro-evolution does happen.ā€ - mVitus, 2018

Now I too win, as Iā€™ve quoted someone who made a statement I agree with.
 
Last edited:
Macro-evolution does happen.

I win. Right? Made a statement without explanation as if it was fact and therefore itā€™s true.
This entire thread has been about whether it happens or not. Catch up please.

No one from your side has showed any empirical proof of macro-evolution. It does not exist.
 
40.png
goout:
Some of you make the objections to Christianity way to easy.
And thatā€™s why itā€™s important for to say the ā€œevolution is hereticalā€ crowd is wrong and explain that evolution and science can be compatible with faith.
More importantly, The Catholic Church says this at the highest levels. This is not a matter of lay opinion on this forum, itā€™s a view shared by Popes and theologians at the highest levels.

Itā€™s not fruitful to wander off to your own island.
 
Last edited:
More importantly, The Catholic Church says this at the highest levels. This is not a matter of lay opinion on this forum, itā€™s a view shared by Popes and theologians at the highest levels.

Itā€™s not fruitful to wander off to your own island.
Micro-evolution is not an issue. I have not seen a Magisterial pronouncement on macro-evolution specifically. Have you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top