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.
rossum said:
40.png
Aloysium:
Its relevance is that evolution is a new religion
Click to expand...
Again, a religious person trying to put down evolution by calling it a religion. Are you trying to tell us that science is superior to religion?

rossum
Click to expand...
Let’s see there are at least five times that I can recall when you’ve posted this. I believe I’ve responded twice.

I am not putting down religion by claiming that science and evolution in this case is a religion for some. This is not any sort of insult. If you honestly think that I am telling you that science is superior to religion, communication here poses a far greater problem than I had imagined. It may be your attempt at being funny, but it does reflect a prejudice that science is superior to religion, since it was you who read that into my words.

Evolution is a myth, a story, a religion for some of its believers. Intelligent design is a similar story or way of seeing things. The first is allowed in science clas, the second is not. The second is considered pseudoscience when evolution is the exactly same thing. As part of evolution, we find the idea that creation happened on its own and that utilitarian priciples (natural selection/survival) are the basis of the diversity and magnitude of life on earth. In the teaching of evolution in school and its promotion in the media, a philosophical belief system, a religion is being introduced as fact, as science, when it is nothing of the kind.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
Evolution is a myth,
Click to expand...
So God deliberately made all those multiply resistant bacteria like MRSA to kill people? If they didn’t evolve then how could they exist if God didn’t make them?

How did resistant bacteria come to exist if they didn’t evolve?

rossum
 
The overlap between the spiritual, meaning Divine Revelation, and the scientific method will always be the sticking point. Bacteria acquire resistance through a built-in mechanism called Horizontal Gene Transfer. Viruses respond with a built-in mechanism that changes their outer protein coat, resulting in different strains of the virus.

The point has always been that bacteria always remain bacteria. Unlike human origins where it is said that modern humans somehow changed over the years by way of an unguided process. I do understand the basic concept but only Intelligent Design fits the criteria.
 
edwest said:
The overlap between the spiritual, meaning Divine Revelation, and the scientific method will always be the sticking point.
Click to expand...
Not for me since I do not have divine revelation, I have the words of the Buddha.
Bacteria acquire resistance through a built-in mechanism called Horizontal Gene Transfer.
Click to expand...
Horizontal Gene Transfer is one of the mechanisms of evolution, it causes changes in the pattern of DNA of a species.
Viruses respond with a built-in mechanism that changes their outer protein coat, resulting in different strains of the virus.
Click to expand...
Again, one of the mechanisms of evolution causing changes in DNA.
The point has always been that bacteria always remain bacteria.
Click to expand...
You need to learn more biology I think. Bacteria are a Kingdom, as are eukaryotes, like Amoeba. I can say that “eukaryotes always remain eukaryotes” and also point out that all land animals, including humans, are eukaryotes – they have mitochondria. Amoeba evolving into humans is just, as you say, “eukaryotes always remain eukaryotes.”
I do understand the basic concept but only Intelligent Design fits the criteria.
Click to expand...
Intelligence is a complex property. ID is very clear that complexity can only arise from design. Who designed the complex intelligence in your proposed intelligent designer?

rossum
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If you expect to reach any of those people, you will have to reference the scientific method. But if you want only to preach to the choir of those who have rejected the scientific method or have redefined science in some other way, then just continue on as you have been doing.
Click to expand...
I’m preaching to those who want to hear and think.

To people who think that all knowledge must be empirically derived, I would ask how they validate that statement and proceed from there.

I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone dispute that the scientific method has value.

Googling “science” I came up with the following definition:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me. When the science is taken beyond that mandate, that’s when problems arise.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
40.png
Aloysium:
Evolution is a myth,
Click to expand...
So God deliberately made all those multiply resistant bacteria like MRSA to kill people? If they didn’t evolve then how could they exist if God didn’t make them?

How did resistant bacteria come to exist if they didn’t evolve?

rossum
Click to expand...
They were created possessing qualities that kept the balance between themselves and fungi within their shared environment. They have mutually defensive traits that keeps the other in check, in addition to those that limit their own growth. They constitute an essential fundamental part of their environment which permits the growth and development of more complex forms of life within the hierarchy of existence, that ultimately has us at its crown.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
If you expect to reach any of those people, you will have to reference the scientific method. But if you want only to preach to the choir of those who have rejected the scientific method or have redefined science in some other way, then just continue on as you have been doing.
Click to expand...
I’m preaching to those who want to hear and think.
Click to expand...
About what? Science or philosophy?
I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone dispute that the scientific method has value.
Click to expand...
In what you wrote below, you are disputing its value in determining the course of biological life forms. So you say it has value, but not there.
Googling “science” I came up with the following definition:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me. When the science is taken beyond that mandate, that’s when problems arise.
Click to expand...
Science does not have a “mandate.” It has a defined method and subject of inquiry as described by the definition you quoted above. The way in which one generation of biological life forms differs from the next and the next for many generations is such a subject under that definition. That’s all that evolution is.

Now before you say it, I will repeat what have acknowledged many times before, and that is some people do take evolution to imply things outside the physical world, such as the non-existence of God and his ultimate role as creator of all. These people are not scientists. They may say they are scientists. They may even have degrees from universities that say they are scientists, and cushy and prestigious teaching positions. But when they venture into such speculation, they are not scientists.

Using the existence of such people to denigrate the work of scientists who conclude that evolution is true, but do not go further than that is just wrong.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
They were created possessing qualities that kept the balance between themselves and fungi within their shared environment. They have mutually defensive traits that keeps the other in check, in addition to those that limit their own growth. They constitute an essential fundamental part of their environment which permits the growth and development of more complex forms of life within the hierarchy of existence, that ultimately has us at its crown.
Click to expand...
Whatever this is, it is not science as we know it. Is this philosophy?

You did not answer my question, did God create MRSA?

rossum
 
Aloysium said:
Googling “science” I came up with the following definition:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Click to expand...
Why does the development of MRSA not come within that definition? You say “evolution is a myth”, yet the evolution of MRSA can easily fit within the definition of science you provide here?

rossum
Click to expand...
 
This is a philosophy forum. I could lecture, as I have done now long ago, on science matters. What do you want to know?

The mandate is as described in the definition I provided.

I am claiming that different kinds of living being were created independently, having no progenitors. As in the case of birds, an example of a kind of being, we see them expressed in a great diversity of forms. That is creation. Evolution is a wrong-headed way to put together the science we know.

Believe what you will.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
This is a philosophy forum. I could lecture, as I have done now long ago, on science matters. What do you want to know?
Click to expand...
Which is why I find it so strange that a thread should be started in the Philosophy forum with a purely scientific question. If you don’t think this an appropriate thread for this forum, don’t add to it. Maybe this thread should just be removed since it is not an appropriate topic for this forum.
 
I was so very lucky, I was in the last generation of students where the teachers admitted the truth about evolution. Is it a fact or a theory? I know now they say it’s fact but in truth it’s a theory. I was told this both in HS & collage. We were also told they expect to find hard proof soon. That was in the 1960’s & 70’s. I’d say soon has come and gone. There is no real proof. You can write 100 books on why this lie is going on. However, there’s an excellent website that’s so long I still haven’t read it all. But it can answer all your questions as to why evolution is only a theory and why this lie continues. Simply put the lie continues due to money, jobs, prestige, and power. But rather than me try to explain these things here’s a link to the website. Prepare to be shocked. Keep reading. This is the truth.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes32.html#wp1056004
 
Evolution is a story, carrying with it philosophical considerations. It is pseudoscience masquerading as science and considered science by those who can’t separate the truth science reveals from the myths we create to explain our existence. I think it may have been stated 2,000 times thus far on this thread. I’m not sure how it could have been missed.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
Evolution is a story, carrying with it philosophical considerations. It is pseudoscience masquerading as science and considered science by those who can’t separate the truth science reveals from the myths we create to explain our existence. I think it may have been stated 2,000 times thus far on this thread. I’m not sure how it could have been missed.
Click to expand...
Oh, I didn’t miss it. I just didn’t believe it.
 
Geo17 said:
I was so very lucky, I was in the last generation of students where the teachers admitted the truth about evolution. Is it a fact or a theory? I know now they say it’s fact but in truth it’s a theory.
Click to expand...
Gravity is a theory as well. So is Relativity. In science, a theory is as good as it gets.

Facts are discovered and theories explain those facts. For example:
  • Gravity-as-fact: things fall down.
  • Gravity-as-theory: things fall down because …
The theory explains the facts and allows us to make future predictions from existing facts.

Similarly evolution is both a fact and a theory.
  • Evolution-as-fact: the genome of a species changes over time.
  • Evolution-as-theory: the genome of a species changes over time because …
The teachers you talk about are right, evolution is both a fact and a theory, it just depends on how you approach it. The DNA of bacteria changes to give them immunity to some antibiotics; the DNA of weeds changes to give them immunity to some herbicides; the DNA of insects changes to give them immunity to some insecticides. Those are the facts of evolution: the DNA of a species changes over time. The Theory of Evolution explains why those changes are happening and what is driving them.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Gravity is a theory as well.
Click to expand...
There is no Theory of Gravity. It is more an observation of how objects interact.

Way back there would have been an idea that things fall down because they are seeking a return to where they came from - the earth. It would not have been testable until it was determined that objects in the sky were of the same stuff as the earth. At that point it would be disproven. There may still be something to be said about the concept in that gravity seeks a return to the singularity from which all sprang, a sort of yang to the universal expansion, yin.

Moving forward to Newton, we have the law of universal gravitation that understands gravity as being an attractive force between any two bodies, proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. While it is the dominant force in the larger universe, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces at the subatomic.

The general theory of relativity describes gravity in terms of the bending of spacetime general. It is not here understood to be a force.

Quantum mechanics presents a very different concept as it looks into what occurs at the smallest level of matter and is a work in progress.

The idea of a theory of gravity in biological terms would be equivalent to that of a theory of reproduction.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top