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:
causes can only be internal to God.
Click to expand...
“internal to God” is mutually exclusive with Christian God, who knows no bounds or limitation. If something can be “internal” to God, then God would have finite bounds.

You’re talking about apples and we’re talking about oranges. Hence the discussion is fruitless until we agree on defintions.
 
Last edited:
Aquinas11 said:
“internal to God” is mutually exclusive with Christian God, who knows no bounds or limitation. If something can be “internal” to God, then God would have finite bounds.
Click to expand...
So something other than God is causing those changes. What is that something? If God is infinite, then how can anything be external to God?

rossum
 
Aquinas11 said:
You can discuss the characteristics of a tiger (essence) separate from the existence of a tiger (let’s hope).
Click to expand...
I reject the concept of “essence”. There is just the tiger, there is no separate essence. Remove each atom from the tiger one by one. No single atom is the tiger, so as you remove the atoms you are not removing the essence. When (after a very long time) you have removed all the atoms, what is left is the essence. That is why I do not see any essences anywhere.

rossum
 
rossum said:
We have. Any actions by God require change: “I will part the sea”; “I will close the sea”. I am examining the source of that change.
Click to expand...
Your literalistic reading of scripture, and your attempt to dictate terms on how these things should be understood, has no bearing on the validity of the arguments put forth to you. Your position is unreasonable regardless.

I have no interest in debating scripture. Why don’t you create another thread on this topic? Or if you wish to proceed, actually address the errors you have been making so that we can at least see that you are not hopelessly entangled in your own bias.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
There is no point in pitting the Church against evolution. To do so would be shortsighted and at worst deceptive. It is not the theory that is the problem, but rather it is the materialistic beliefs that some people use science to justify, that is the real problem.
Click to expand...
No, no. The Church is not opposed to science; it’s just that the Darwinians are not founded in science, but in fantasy and supposition
 
See other part of post. We don’t agree on meaning of “God” so until we do discussion is fruitless exercise
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
There is just the tiger, there is no separate essence.
Click to expand...
No you do because you can discuss tiger, discuss it’s characteristics (essence), list them (Orange w black stripes, etc), without requiring physical presence of tiger (existence) . Unless you’re saying you can ONLY discuss tiger characteristics at zoo, with tiger, for example?
 
Aquinas11 said:
No you do because you can discuss tiger, discuss it’s characteristics (essence), list them (Orange w black stripes, etc), without requiring physical presence of tiger (existence) . Unless you’re saying you can ONLY discuss tiger characteristics at zoo, with tiger, for example?
Click to expand...
One characteristic of the tiger is that it is alive. That characteristic is not confined just to tigers, it is a far more general characteristic.

Your “tiger essence” either has to include things that are also shared with other things, meaning it is not specific to tigers only, or you have a ‘tiger’ stripped of all things that it shares with other entities: fur, teeth, legs, brain etc.

That smears out the concept of “essence” so it is effectively impossible to apply it to any individual thing. For example, “made from atoms” applies to the essence/characteristics of every material thing.

Then there is the problem of change. What is the relationship between essence-of-acorn and essence-of-oak-tree? Are they the same or are they different?

rossum
 
buffalo said:
Definitely not empirical science (observable, repeatable and predictable). Evolution is philosophy and for some a religion.
Click to expand...
We can observe elephants evolving under pressure from a change in their environment.

If that change is not down to Darwinian evolution then how do you explain it?

rossum
 
IWantGod said:
Physical reality is space-time and whatever that contains. Anything else is just your imagination
Click to expand...
And if space-time and energy-matter are all contingent, that does not mean the Universe that contains them is contingent.

Rather than accept the possibility that a Universe of infinite duration does not require a cause you postulate a Something of infinite duration that does not require a cause.
 
Last edited:
PickyPicky said:
40.png
rossum:
If that change is not down to Darwinian evolution then how do you explain it?
Click to expand...
Oh no! I can hear the dread word “micro” springing to Buffalo’s lips.
Click to expand...
She’s only a little bit pregnant!
 
rossum said:
One characteristic of the tiger is that it is alive. That characteristic is not confined just to tigers, it is a far more general characteristic.

Your “tiger essence” either has to include things that are also shared with other things, meaning it is not specific to tigers only, or you have a ‘tiger’ stripped of all things that it shares with other entities: fur, teeth, legs, brain etc.

That smears out the concept of “essence” so it is effectively impossible to apply it to any individual thing. For example, “made from atoms” applies to the essence/characteristics of every material thing.

Then there is the problem of change. What is the relationship between essence-of-acorn and essence-of-oak-tree? Are they the same or are they different?
Click to expand...
One characteristic of the tiger is that it is alive. That characteristic is not confined just to tigers, it is a far more general characteristic.

Your “tiger species ” either has to include things that are also shared with other things, meaning it is not specific to tigers only, or you have a ‘tiger’ stripped of all things that it shares with other entities: fur, teeth, legs, brain etc.

That smears out the concept of “species” so it is effectively impossible to apply it to any individual thing. For example, “made from atoms” applies to the species /characteristics of every material thing.

Then there is the problem of change. What is the relationship between species -of-acorn and species -of-oak-tree? Are they the same or are they different?
Click to expand...
If you and PickyPicky are consistent in your argumentation then you give the OP a negative response. No essences = no species. Who’s left (that hasn’t swallowed the blue pill) to coherently argue the opposite?
 
rossum said:
Your “tiger essence” either has to include things that are also shared with other things, meaning it is not specific to tigers only, or you have a ‘tiger’ stripped of all things that it shares with other entities: fur, teeth, legs, brain etc.
Click to expand...
It’s the former

Alive, four legs, fur , Orange, black stripes are ALL part of the essence.

If the tiger dies, or you cut off a leg or you paint him red, that changes essence but still a tiger since each essence element has a potential to undergo certain changes (eg from Orange/black stripes to red if you spray paint him), but other essence elements can’t undergo other changes (eg you can’t change his Orange/black fur to gold)
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
If you and PickyPicky are consistent in your argumentation then you give the OP a negative response
Click to expand...
As far as my argumentation is concerned I believe I have already pointed out your logical error.
 
Edgar said:
40.png
guanophore:
How does Jesus eat after the resurrection? His resurrected body could pass through walls and ascend into heaven. There is so much that we just don’t know and understand about heavenly bodies, and the forms of angels. And what does it have to do with the evolution of species?
Click to expand...
Good queston: I forget.
Click to expand...
How about?

A spirit passes through a wall in the same manner that a brick passes through a fog. We think of matter as being very solid because the leg of a table can be unforgiving on a big toe. It’s hard to find the right word, but I will propose that the world of the spirit, which contains the physical is more real. Matter is only one dimension of that realm, a dimension that we are here subject to, but most definitely not God, nor it would appear some angels.

Thinking about God as the creator of everything, in terms of the sprectrum of light, He is the sun. Bringing all time and space into existence and thereby being nowhere and everywhere, He is infinitely more than the universe. All the emotions we have, the human interactions, our entire lives, all the people we know and things we’ve done, containing them all within the ocean of His compassion, He is greater.
Philippians 2:5-11: For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.
Click to expand...
Let’s suppose there is an angel that is the means by which geometry comes into existence; perhaps he is geometry itself. The angel would contain all shapes and the relationships between their sides and angles. Say we are circles with the capacity to know the page on which we are drawn. The angel becomes much less than everything it is, to take the form of another circle on the page to let us know that there is something far greater going on than what our notes contain. Of course he can appear like one of us although perfect (unlike this analogy).

What this has to do with evolution is that God, brings everything into being. Creation is just that and evolution is a poor attempt at explaining who we are and how we got here, reflecting the reality that “there is so much that we just don’t know and understand” and the difficulty people have in accepting that God is God.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top