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.
Wozza said:
Now this might be just a coincidence, but a lot of other people think exactly the same.
Click to expand...
That post from Edgar was constructive. We should restrict our sarcasm for the anti-evolutionist posters who do not attempt to be constructive. (Plenty of scope there.)
 
PickyPicky said:
40.png
Wozza:
Now this might be just a coincidence, but a lot of other people think exactly the same.
Click to expand...
That post from Edgar was constructive. We should restrict our sarcasm for the anti-evolutionist posters who do not attempt to be constructive. (Plenty of scope there.)
Click to expand...
OK. Let’s just deal with anti-evolutionists. Like this guy:
I don’t expect this particular belief system will disappear anytime soon - it will masquerade as science for as long as there are atheists to promote it.
Click to expand...
Hardly constructive. I wonder who wrote it…
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
Let’s just deal with anti-evolutionists.
Click to expand...
How about, let’s deal with the points and arguments that are being made.
I don’t expect this particular belief system will disappear anytime soon - it will masquerade as science for as long as there are atheists to promote it.
Click to expand...
There are a few issues being raised here:
  • evolution is a belief system
  • it is prevalent in society, promoted in schools and in the various media, being a myth that defines who we are and got here. This zeitgeist is based on social forces that are here outside the science itself. These historically, come and go.
  • the science and the myth are understood as one; it is difficult for people to separate the reality which is emirically derived from the story whereby it makes sense of the basic facts.
  • evolution rests on the concepts of events happening of their own accord and a utilitarian philosophical basis that views survival as that which has shaped the diversity and beauty of life forms on earth. This sort of understanding fits in well with atheists, deists and naturalists/pantheists.
 
Regarding your comment about the possible survival of an organism in one area and not another, you can buy a Wollemi Pine, which has gone missing for 200 million years. Or a fish called a Coelacanth, which had gone missing for 66 million years until a living sample was caught. They are classified as “primitive” fish, but that is an arbitrary classification.
 
Even if people don’t fully understand it, believing it without critical examination can lead to a distorted understanding of what human beings are. Example: A person might think he’s nothing more than an animal and that when he dies, nothing happens. This ignores the spiritual reality of his body, his proper relationship to others and to God.
 
What I found most interesting is:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

It’s diffficult to imagine it being a spontaneous random formation, although far far simpler than the smallest living creature, which many believe happened just that way. It appears to be nothing but a fabricated hammer, designed by a human being for the purpose of breaking up pieces of rock. Its encasement in rock looks like a natural process, something that we might expect if one were to leave it in a cave with speleothem formations, mineral deposits such as stalagmites and stalactites.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

My best guess would be that it was dropped by some nineteenth century prospector into some sort of hole which gradually filled with sediment that hardened leaving the handle visible evoking the interest of a modern day searcher.

Obviously, this explanation is put together utilizinga series of assumptions as to how things work and what is possible, the same sort of thinking that leads to the conclusion of creation over that of evolution. We can discern what has been designed (in this case the hammer) by virtue of its complexity and the presence of final causes, in addition to the formal, efficient and material.
 
Last edited:
The video suggests to me that the methodology used to date fossils based on the age of the rock in which they are found needs a total rethink.
 
o_mlly said:
The video suggests to me that the methodology used to date fossils based on the age of the rock in which they are found needs a total rethink.
Click to expand...
Yeah…the same people touting Archaeopteryx, will totally dismiss that 400 million year old hammer.
 
edwest said:
Even if people don’t fully understand it, believing it without critical examination can lead to a distorted understanding of what human beings are. Example: A person might think he’s nothing more than an animal and that when he dies, nothing happens. This ignores the spiritual reality of his body, his proper relationship to others and to God
Click to expand...
Well said. I have encountered ex-Christians on various forums who cited Darwinism as a major contributor to their loss of faith.
 
I found the comment about the hammer’s handles turning into “coal” very interesting. Perhaps coal doesn’t take as long to form as we are led to believe. I suspect geology and paleontology are so skewed to conform to evolutionary theory (ie, very long ages) it’s hard to separate fact from potential fantasy.
 
o_mlly said:
The video suggests to me that the methodology used to date fossils based on the age of the rock in which they are found needs a total rethink.
Click to expand...
It would be nigh on impossible for those who have a deep-seated, psychological, quasi-religious need to believe that life is billions of years old to “rethink” their position. The consensus of scientific community seems to reflect that need (addiction).
 
Techno2000 said:
Yeah…the same people touting Archaeopteryx, will totally dismiss that 400 million year old hammer.
Click to expand...
It’s just simple science - that 400 million year-old “hammer” was probably the long lost ancestor of the hammer-head shark.
 
Instead of “perhaps” and “I suspect” why don’t you do some research and see where the evidence takes you? Is it because you might not like the conclusion?

Seems to me like you’ve chosen to simply reject the evidence and accuse the scientific community of a conspiracy theory instead. Why is that?
 
The video suggests to me that there’s a Youtube channel dedicated to conspiracy theories and misinterpreting science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top