Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Aloysium]

I NEVER DISAGREED WITH THIS

I was restating your position; there’s no need to yell at me.

This is just another instance of you misconstruing

Welcome to the modern tower of Babel, the Internet.

Your arguments are all based on the presupposition that evolution is wrong, despite massive evidence to the contrary.

It is a story, an interpretation of the facts, which are more comprehensively and coherently expressed in a view that is centred on existence and creation by God who is Existence itself, He around whom all time and space revolve.

 

[edwest]

What evidence? Especially regarding our first parents? It’s speculation at best. This theory is of no use to anyone but it’s brought up here as if it is. Biologists don’t have an ‘evolution reference guide.’ No one does. Drug discovery is still trial and error and there are drugs marketed on TV that once they get done reading off the side effects, I think, no way.

 

[o_mlly]

Evolution is a theory [at best] and not a law? Well done. These threads serve some purpose it seems. And reality regulates our understanding of natural laws? Good grief, progress is definitely being made.

Clear evidence that late-comers to threads often neither read previous posts nor post accurate quotes. Well done; proves the point…

But if you are a fundamentalist Catholic who treats Genesis as being literally true, then you must reject it.

Ahem.

I think you’re arguing for the sake of it.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Evolution is a theory [at best] and not a law? Well done. These threads serve some purpose it seems. And reality regulates our understanding of natural laws? Good grief, progress is definitely being made.

Clear evidence that late-comers to threads often neither read previous posts nor post accurate quotes. Well done; proves the point…

Now you’ve lost all your brownie points. It’s not a theory ‘at best’. It’s just a theory. No qualifiers are allowed. It stands or falls as to how best it explains the facts at hand. Bring a better one to the table and win a prize.

 

[o_mlly]

Now you’ve lost all your brownie points. It’s not a theory ‘at best’. It’s just a theory. No qualifiers are allowed. It stands or falls as to how best it explains the facts at hand. Bring a better one to the table and win a prize.

Nothing new here. Do your homework – read the prior posts then if you think you have something novel to add then write “NEW” in the header. I’ll pass on the drivel until then.

 

[Edgar]

The best natural answer we have to the question as to how we physically came to be is evolution.

I accept that evolution is the best scientific (“natural”) answer, but since God was involved in the process, a “natural” answer is probably miles from the truth.

Don’t waste everyone’s time trying to deny God’s natural laws by invoking your personal interpretation of scripture and demanding that everyone accepts He could only produce what we have now using supernatural means.

I can’t recall making such a demand.

He could have done either. But all the evidence points to Him choosing to work with His own natural laws.

How do natural laws explain the Cambrian Explosion?

The only people who deny this are fundamental Christians who insist on reading scripture literally.

I am living proof that Genesis literalists are not the only ones.

 

[Edgar]

We have extensive fossil records that seem to indicate a progression of species, with many different groups sharing distinct traits that would reasonably be explained by divergence from an proceeding species.

Right, we can get an idea of what happened, but as for how it happened, we can only speculate. No one can prove that the progression of species was a completely naturally process - just as I can’t prove there was a supernatural force involved.

We also see large gaps in the fossil records, holes, that would seem to indicate rapid development of new species.

… which strongly suggests a supernatural element.

As for the whole “they can’t prove it” thing. Technically, no, they can’t. However, if we see an increasing number of avian traits in dinosaurs as time progresses (the development of feathers, then wing structures, then hollow bones, etc.) we can reasonably conclude from these shared traits that they are related. It may not be provable, but it is certainly a rational conclusion.

What natural laws would prompt a dinosaur to develop feathers, wings and hollow bones? If natural laws are guided by God to create vastly differernt organisms, then we are dealing with a supernatural process that can’t be explained by puny science.
Furthermore, if birds evolved biologically from dinosaurs, for example, the process that made that possible may no longer be operative. Perhaps, when mankind was created, the creation reached its end-point of development - another reason why science may have no chance of explaining how evolution happened.

 

[Edgar]

I believe they eventually became extinct due to competition from rational humans, or due to shifts in climate and resources

No mention of them in Genesis. Funny that - you’d reckon Adam and Eve’s parents, if not some of their other close relatives, would at least get a mention.

That climate change must have come on pretty quickly! And none of the soul-less humans survived? Not even one?

I favor the second clause, as it can also provide an explanation for the story of the Nephilim

But the Nephilim were giants - how do humans produce giant offspring? Plus, my Ignatius Catholic Study Bible suggests the Nephilim were the offspring of fallen angels who mated with human women (see Genesis 6, Jude 6, 2Peter 2).

 

[Edgar]

How many semi human creatures got souls ?

The offspring of a souled human and a no-souled human would be a half-souled human, wouldn’t it? (… that is to say, a rational and immortal soul.)
Then further along the family tree, there could be quarter-souled humans, eight-souled humans, one-sixteenth-souled humans, etc. Apparently, none of these part-of-a-soul humans survived - not even the ones with 1/2048 of a soul.

 

[Edgar]

Yall always crumble then you have to come up with details

The theory of evolution wasn’t designed for close scrutiny and critical thinking - if you don’t have blind faith in this atheist explanation of life, then there is no hope for you. People like you, Techno, are enemies of pseudo-science and nothing but trouble-makers. I afraid you’re chances of becoming an evolutionist are close to zero.

 

[Edgar]

Whatever, like I said, I’m done with this thread.

No one leaves this thread … and survives.

 

[Edgar]

The guy just took out some time to give you a 600 word answer to your question and you insult him and accuse him of cutting and running?

Oh, come on; it wasn’t 600 words - it was only 598!

 

[Edgar]

But if you are a fundamentalist Catholic who treats Genesis as being literally true, then you must reject it.

An ex cathedra declaration from Pope Wozza.

 

[Edgar]

Where the evidence leads I have no choice.

Translation: “Where my atheism leads I have no choice.”

 

[Edgar]

I was restating your position; there’s no need to yell at me

It hurt my ears too.

 

[Edgar]

Your arguments are all based on the presupposition that evolution is wrong, despite massive evidence to the contrary.

You mean despite some evidence and MASSIVE HYPE AND PROPAGANDA from the atheist end of town.

 

[mVitus]

For what it’s worth Prodgl, I’ve found your posts interesting. I also empathize with getting tired of the infinite loop these threads can take. Best of luck to you.

 

[Wozza]

Right, we can get an idea of what happened, but as for how it happened, we can only speculate. No one can prove that the progression of species was a completely naturally process - just as I can’t prove there was a supernatural force involved.

Holy Toledo. Must I use all caps and put the posts in Gothic Bold to get the message across?

We DO have explantions of what happened and we DO have explantions of how it happened. And as you yourself said earlier, it’s the best scientific answer we have. Period. We need go no further as to tbe process. We agree that we have the best scientific answer available. Yes, there may be areas of contention and yes there are gaps in our knowledge. But to repeat again: The answer as to what happened and how it happened is the best one we’ve got. And to repeat this point again: You have agreed to that.

Now from a Christian point of view, the question that needs to be answered is this: Did the process use God’s natural laws in a manner which He conceived, or did He use supernatural means?

The answer has already been decided. Because we have agreed that we can understand how natural laws governed the process. If it was done supernaturally - outside of natural laws, then we wouldn’t be able to formulate any theories for the process.

But does that mean that God was not involved and that everything is entirely random and not part of His plan?

NO. IT DOESN’T!

All it means is that a literal, fundamentalist reading of scripture conflicts with the process. So you pays your money and you makes your choice. You can accept the process as part of God’s plan which He has allowed to procede within His natural laws or you can demand a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible.

If the latter then head over to the threads discussing the pros and cons of gopher wood as a building material for arks.

 

[Aloysium]

it’s the best scientific answer we have. Period. We need go no further as to tbe process. We agree that we have the best scientific answer available.

With evolutionary theories, science oversteps its bounds, those that are imposed by empiricism. That approach to the structure of things works to some degree as far as we are dealing with the simplest - matter, at least allowing us to build some pretty fantastic things. But, when we approach more complex existent forms, different approaches are required.

Let’s jump to the human strata of what is. We have such fields as psychology, sociology, political science and economics, not to mention philosphy and theology, to describe our relationships with reality. These are very much more complex than the simple and still enigmatic workings of matter. To begin to address how we got here, we have to understand who we are, and science cannot explain more than the constituent parts that are brought together as one whole, you and me.

In trying to explain how we got here based on a simplistic understanding of the person, trying to explain the origins of this resulting homunculus, the picture becomes increasingly distorted. The scientific data, although always a work in progress is actually fine with creation, which better puts it all together, but the mythos of our times, which justifies our behaviour towards one another and towards God, is naturally going to be accepted, albeit pseudoscience and untrue.

 

[Aloysium]

I also empathize with getting tired of the infinite loop these threads can take.

Interestingly, I never tire of it. I’ve actually given up on getting people on board to my way of thinking. This forum offers me an opportunity to grow in knowledge and understanding, contemplating the various views presented. More importantly, this is a component of worship that brings to mind the greatness of God. As a science guy, my relationship with existence involves nature and matter. As every act dissolves in prayer that God-willing will encompass the entire day, every day, so too every thought. And as that happens, it is all about creation, and evolution suddenly becomes an inconsequential set of ideas that miss the mark. Everything points to God, who is with us here and now. May He guide us towards Himself, where we eternally sing out His Glory.