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.
IWantGod said:
40.png
Aloysium:
To speak of creation we cannot remain at the level of the material,
Click to expand...
Science is the study of physical processes. If you want more, then that’s a job for philosophy and religion.
Click to expand...
And that is why evolution is a negative force in society, because it introduces materialism and ultilitarianism into the classroom as being at the ground of all that is, not only the basic physical constituents, but of life itself. Even you yourself spoke of “what actually happened”. What did you mean? What happened is revealed in Genesis. We need only to open our ears.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
All scientific theories are grounded in methodological naturalism.
Click to expand...
They did not in the past. Now they just consider the material and efficient causes. In the past they considered the formal, material, efficient and finals causes which gives us a much better picture and explanation.
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
Aloysium:
because it introduces materialism and ultilitarianism
Click to expand...
All scientific theories are grounded in methodological naturalism.
Click to expand...
Evolution is not testable. It is not verifiable. It cannot be validated. It is an interpretation that strays far past the boundaries that allow the natural sciences to reveal to us their truth. To gain an understanding of life, not merely its physical structures and processes, and especially we ourselves, we need to go beyond the limits that empiricism demands. The truth of our origins can be appreciated only by trying to understand their existential reality. Actually, this would be a requirement for understanding more than what matter does and how we can manipulate it, its origins and the nature of what it is in itself.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Evolution is religion.
Click to expand...
So, you attempt to criticise evolution by calling it religion. That means you think that science is superior to religion, and by demoting evolution to religion you are trying to minimise its importance.

A strange attitude for a religious person to take.

rossum
 
rossum said:
So, you attempt to criticise evolution by calling it religion. That means you think that science is superior to religion, and by demoting evolution to religion you are trying to minimise its importance.

A strange attitude for a religious person to take.
Click to expand...
Evolution is not empirical science.
 
buffalo said:
Evolution is not empirical science.
Click to expand...
MRSA is not empirical science? Remember, adaptation is micro-evolution which is part of evolution, as the word says.

I have posted the Marbled Crayfish here before, and that is an empirical example of macro-evolution, another part of evolution.

Why do you expect me to believe your ridiculous claims when I have already shown you the evidence which proves you wrong?

rossum

PS: Is anyone else getting that annoying delay before a new post on this thread actually posts?
 
rossum said:
I have posted the Marbled Crayfish here before, and that is an empirical example of macro-evolution, another part of evolution.

Why do you expect me to believe your ridiculous claims when I have already shown you the evidence which proves you wrong?
Click to expand...
Because marbled crayfish have lost function. It is not an example of macro-evolution.
 
Hi guys. Just called in to see how y’all are doing. Same ol’ same ol’ I see. Nothing new under the sun, as they say.

Might I make a suggestion? Those who are supporting the op have said (oh, so many times) all that is needed to be said. So could we let the fundamentalists have the last (nonsensical) word and end this? We really don’t have to keep telling them that they are wrong. I think everyone has got the message.

Our work is done. The horse is dead. Let’s not beat the corpse any more.
 
My dear Bradskii,

Yes, I know. I know. But as I’ve watched and read threads like this ad infinitum, it’s going to keep going forever.

No ride into the sunset. No until the cows come home.

We’re looking at forever here. As in, forever.
 
I find it entertaining, because new people are always jumping in these threads with their own ideas about Darwin"s theory of evolution.
 
Last edited:
There are some other gems in this paper:

A brief history of human evolution: challenging Darwin’s claim​

The fossil records today show few intermediate forms; on the other hand, we see fully-formed living species seem to emerge suddenly without any evolutionary transitional form between them. This lack of factual evidence is enough to back their claim that all living species are created separately, and that life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Derek V. Ager, a famous British evolutionist admits this fact by saying;
“The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of Orders or of Species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”(Ager [1976]
Click to expand...
The fact that all living species were created separately, suddenly and fully-formed without any evolutionary ancestor is yet again backed by evolutionist biologist Douglas Futuyma, who claimed,
“Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.”(Futuyma [1983]
Click to expand...
Fossil records today back this claim that all living species emerged fully developed and in a perfect state on earth.

(https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41257-018-0014-2#CR1))
 
continued
“We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man’s fossil history, where to the faithful [evolutionist] anything is possible – and where the ardent believer [in evolution] is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.”(Zuckerman 1970a, b)
Click to expand...
Keeping all the arguments and counter arguments in mind with respect to the theory of man’s evolution, I shall conclude by quoting a few sentences from Harun Yahya’s book, ‘Fascism: The Bloody Ideology of Darwinism’ ,
“…the theory of evolution is a claim evidently at variance with scientific findings. The theory’s claim on the origin of life is inconsistent with science, the evolutionary mechanisms it proposes have no evolutionary power, and fossils demonstrate that the intermediate forms required by the theory never existed. So, it certainly follows that the theory of evolution should be pushed aside as an unscientific idea.”(Yahya 2002a, b, c)
Click to expand...
Richard C. Lewontin who is a well-known geneticist and an evolutionist from Harvard University claims that he is first and foremost a materialist and then a scientist. He confesses;
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”(Lewontin 1997)
Click to expand...
So, in short, the evolutionists who give materialist answers to the hundreds of questions that arise in the conscious thinking mind of the modern man today, are not only further creating confusions but have in a way failed to satisfy the logical and rational human mind. ( Indeed 😀 )
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top