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.
Maybe you haven’t been following the thread too closely. Or the umpteen threads on this topic prior to this particular one. So let me precis them for you. With a heads up on what the discussion is not about first: It is NOT aabout whether evolution can prove that God does not exist. In fact, all the discussions have been predicated on the fact that He does. All good?

Firstly, it is not a debate. It’s a bunch of people cutting and pasting chunks of what they consider to be evidence proving that evolution never has taken place. These are the people that seem to think that there is some dastardly plot going on to undermine belief in God. Despite numerous requests for anyone to link to a comment that tries to do just that, nothing has been forthcomong.

Secondly, we have people who don’t seem to be able to grasp the simplest of concepts and ask the same dumb questions time and time again. It’s barely credible that people can argue against something when they give all the indications that they have no idea about that which they are discussing (morning, Glark).

Thirdly, we have some that insist that, as you imply, God could not get the natural processes (that He set in motion) to give Him what He actually wanted and He has to step in and supernaturally fiddle with creation. Nobody has given any indication whatsoever as to how we are meant to differentiate between natural and supernatural.

But you have a science degree. Maybe you can help. There are some people posting here that need all the help they can get.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
The vitriol comes from the evolutionists, I’ve noticed. It is the bad fruit of pride and arrogance.
Click to expand...
Wotta shockin’ thing to say! Evolutionists are gentle and loving and kind to kittens. They are humble and awestruck in the face of the beauty and imagination of God. They worship their Creator and sincerely pray for Creationists.
 
Last edited:
After reading Leisola and Witt’s book, it is clear that a paradigm shift is needed in order to explain the origin and diversity of life, from chemical and Darwinian evolution towards a design explanation. This raises the question of whether the research community is willing to follow the evidence and allow such a shift to take place. If not, there is a great risk that the judgement of future generations will be hard. However, such a change will not come easily, since ultimately our worldview is at stake. – Ola Hössjer, Professor of Mathematical Statistics at Stockholm University

There you have it…
 
Point taken,I AM newer to this thread and others like it. I’m not pointing at anyone in particular btw, so apologies if it came off directed at you Brad, was more speaking in general. After all we are people of faith and the ultimate point is to have Charity even in debate or argument… At any rate I’m not convinced God doesn’t effect evolution, but I generally think it follows trends. That said I was always quite disheartened whenever in many of these science classes any dissent or conflict of opinion was quickly shut down. Usually by someone with a louder voice or “higher” degree. In matters of opinion I don’t see degrees meaning all that much. I saw MANY mistakes made by people of all education levels. At any point just wanted to chime in and say hello to everyone as well, great reading threads like this from those of faith debating in conscience.
 
Excellent post. But don’t get your hopes up … most atheistic scientists would rather have their eyes gouged out than admit to design.
 
Frankly, you are the one of worst offenders when it comes to vitriol. For example, you think nothing of accusing creationists of dishonesty and calling them liars. This is a result of your obvious intellectual pride and arrogance. Have you been taking lessons in rudeness from Bradski?
 
Mea culpa! I am so sorry. I hadn’t realised that mendacity wasn’t considered a virtue in Creationist circles. I thought it would be taken as a compliment. I do apologise.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
I hadn’t realised that mendacity wasn’t considered a virtue in Creationist circles.
Click to expand...
This says something to me about the author of the statement, actually quite a bit as I follow its implications. That’s not my business, but it needs to be pointed out that as cathartic it may feel to say such things, words put out there are may not come across as the writer intended. Interestingly, as difficult it may be to express certain concepts, we tend to say a lot more than we think we do.

Whether or not the statement truly reflects the poster’s sentiments, taking it seriously, I would assert that my impression is quite the opposite. I think people on the creationist side of these arguments are being honest with their views. I may not agree with everything that has been written, but here we are dealing with opinions and views on a subject. In the end the science doesn’t matter. What we see as fact today will be superceded by something else. And, I do think there will be ultimately a paradigm shift in understanding who we are in terms of our origins that will reduce evolutionism to a quaint materialistic myth. My reason and knowledge base, which I can with complete confidence say is greater than other posters here, tells me this is will happen. I’m not lying or pretending here any more than are Ed, Glark, Buffalo, Techno and others.
 
Why indeed? In an earlier thread, however, I enumerated several very specific strategies that seemed typical of most creationist websites and commenters, and expounded in some detail why these strategies were unlikely to win the unconverted over to the Creationist side. To their credit, I feel there has been a reduction of the use of these tactics on this particular thread, but where they crop up again, I shall continue to come down on them like a ton of bricks. Or gallon of vitriol.

I agree with Aloysium that the Creationists here are honest in their belief, and honest in their views and opinions regarding those beliefs. It is rarely those that I criticise. However, I, and I hope every seeker after truth, will criticise the tactics used to uphold those beliefs, where they fall short of the moral standards implied by their acceptance of their beliefs.

I need hardly add that I don’t recall Aloysium ever attracting my opprobrium.
 
"Darwinism was once a well-fortified castle, with elaborate towers, moats, and battlements. It remained in that condition for well over 100 years—from the publication of “The Origin of Species” in 1859 to the Darwin Centennial and then for perhaps three decades after that. Today, however, it more closely resembles a house of cards, built out of flimsy icons rather than hard evidence, and liable to blow away in the slightest breeze. —Tom Bethell, Darwin’s House of Cards (2017) …
 
buffalo said:
"Darwinism was once a well-fortified castle, with elaborate towers, moats, and battlements. It remained in that condition for well over 100 years—from the publication of “The Origin of Species” in 1859 to the Darwin Centennial and then for perhaps three decades after that. Today, however, it more closely resembles a house of cards, built out of flimsy icons rather than hard evidence, and liable to blow away in the slightest breeze. —Tom Bethell, Darwin’s House of Cards (2017) …
Click to expand...
And why should we pay any attention to Tom Bethell’s personal opinion? After all, he disagrees with Catholic biologist Ken Miller and with Christian genetecist Francis Collins.

rossum
 
A flimsy icon would be an insubstantial representations of how nature works which can be easily picked apart. You’d have to read his book to understand what he means.
 
Bradskii said:
These are the people that seem to think that there is some dastardly plot going on to undermine belief in God.
Click to expand...
You seem oblivious to the very strange and obvious fact that the scientific community, education systems and the mass media are obsessed with preaching a scientific theory that can never be tested, boasts nothing in the way of empirical evidence, is contradicted by thousands of years of animal and plant breeding, is contradicted by the fossil record, and is 100% scientifically useless. So it would be a waste of time asking someone who hasn’t even noticed said obsession to explain its existence. Then again, your blindness and cluelessness is to be expected - what chance does an atheist walking in spiritual darkness have of recognising a demonic deception when it comes along?
Secondly, we have people who don’t seem to be able to grasp the simplest of concepts and ask the same dumb questions time and time again. It’s barely credible that people can argue against something when they give all the indications that they have no idea about that which they are discussing (morning, Glark).
Click to expand...
You’ve made this accusation a few times before, and it may well be warranted. However, in response to each of your accusations, I’ve requested an example of my perceived ignorance, but you have hitherto failed to supply even one. How can this curiosity be explained? Am I to conclude that your accusation, like your theory of evolution, has no basis in reality and is, in fact, a product of some kind of delusion? Perhaps, like our poor friend, Hugh_Farey, you often find yourself in a dazed and confused state, resulting in embarrassing interpretations of reality and various cognitive malfunctions relating to science.
 
Last edited:
Servant31 said:
I was always quite disheartened whenever in many of these science classes any dissent or conflict of opinion was quickly shut down. Usually by someone with a louder voice or “higher” degree.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the Cult of Evolutionism, my friend, where inconvenient questions are considered close enough to dissent to be unwelcome. Satan doesn’t like anyone looking too closely into one of his favourite and most successful deceptions (which has been swallowed, seemingly, by most of the greatest scientific minds on the planet, not to mention a large percentage of the general populace).

All scientific theories are open to debate - except evolution.
In matters of opinion I don’t see degrees meaning all that much.
Click to expand...
Adherents of the religion of Scientism (some of whom inhabit this forum) tend to be fond of anyone with a Science degree - because 99.999% of such “enlightened” graduates have been thoroughly brainwashed into uncritically accepting evolution as an established fact. It’s a case of “herd instinct”, I guess, or “monkey see, monkey do”. Let’s face it, most people are followers - whichever way the wind blows or whichever way the herd turns, they are bound to follow.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top