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.
buffalo said:
Because marbled crayfish have lost function. It is not an example of macro-evolution.
Click to expand...
You are incorrect here. It is precisely because they have lost the ability to breed with their ancestors and have gained the ability to breed within themselves that they have reproductive isolation and so are a new species. By definition a new species is macro-evolution.

You are using your own idiosyncratic definition here, not the standard definition. That is Humpty Dumpty argumentation, an obvious error.

rossum
 
The amount of discourse and ambiguity generated by the scriptures is very disconcerting.
This forum topic is a case in point.

The number of interpretation, literal vs literalistic, allegory or parable. No wonder we suffer from so many denominations. If only God had sent us a clear and concise word we wouldn’t be sitting here debating what it means. sigh…
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
40.png
Aloysium:
This hierarchy was brought into existence sequentially within the “six days” of creation
Click to expand...
So you are a young earth creationist?
Click to expand...
When words are in parentheses, it is to alert the reader that their meaning deserves some special attention.

The message to the faithful is that there were six days of creation. And, to at least one person in the 21st century, what this means is that God initiated a process that has a cyclical pattern. Creation doesn’t happen in the manner of a fountain spouting water perpetually.

Time proceeds, with events constantly in motion. Their beginnings were progressively constructed, brought into existence from what had previously been created, a hierarchy of being. From an original formless plasma that was created from nothing, the subatomic were brought into existence utilizing that primal energy. The atom, the elements of the periodic table, stars and galaxies followed, leading to living forms and finally, we ourselves, through one first man. All was created in a step-wise fashion, each kind of being to express itself in a variety of forms.

What was created was Eden. This fallen world emerged from that ontological seed, the original sin distorting its reality from its beginning to the end, transforming an eternal state into a journey whereby all creation, through us, in and through Jesus Christ hopes to ultimately enter into communion within the Trinity. Hence the illusion of evolution, which sees the world as the ground of its own being, rather than Divine Love, the Source of all existence.

While geological time on the surface seems to contradict the idea of all this happening in six days, what we are talking about is time before the existence of mankind. We exist as frames of reference, inserting ourselves in any event within time-space. As we see the sun rising and setting, and discover a greater reality emerging from the perspective of what is the solar system, so too the truth seen from the higher Ground of Being reveals how God would know His creation.

It should be noted that those who understand creation as having happened in successive 24 hour periods, may be closer to the Truth than I, and definitely closer than the man who wrote A Brief History of Time.
 
Last edited:
samalematina said:
If only God had sent us a clear and concise word we wouldn’t be sitting here debating what it means. sigh…
Click to expand...
As we debate, if it were not for human arrogance, we would realize the depths of our ignorance and reach out, praying for the graces of the Holy Spirit. We fell thinking we could be gods without God. I would think that ultimate meaning is to be found face to face with God. This exercise can be a growing process, as we recognize the purposelessness of an existence without Him. It offers me personally an opportunity to proclaim His glory.
 
Last edited:
And the sun is seen to rise and set although there exists a solar system. Rather than a lack of knowledge of what is analogous to the Ptolemaic System, it is a rejection of evolution and the illusory ideas that maintain it, in favour of a greater truth.
 
rossum said:
You are incorrect here. It is precisely because they have lost the ability to breed with their ancestors and have gained the ability to breed within themselves that they have reproductive isolation and so are a new species. By definition a new species is macro-evolution.

You are using your own idiosyncratic definition here, not the standard definition. That is Humpty Dumpty argumentation, an obvious error.
Click to expand...
You affirm loss of function once had. They are not evolving, they are devolving. Classify them anyway you want, but it is not showing macro-evolution. You are just playing word games here. You and I well know the real truth of the matter.
 
samalematina said:
The amount of discourse and ambiguity generated by the scriptures is very disconcerting.
This forum topic is a case in point.

The number of interpretation, literal vs literalistic, allegory or parable. No wonder we suffer from so many denominations. If only God had sent us a clear and concise word we wouldn’t be sitting here debating what it means. sigh…
Click to expand...
Catholics depend on the Magisterium for consistent teaching and understanding of Scripture along with Tradition. It is when one goes “sola scriptura” the vast number of ecclesiastical communities multiply.
 
After years of watching this sort of debate on this forum, a few things are clear. It is not about science. It is about a way of looking at alleged evidence in one way and one way only. A way that, it is hoped, would be acceptable to Catholics. The Church has the duty and responsibility to interpret Scripture correctly, and has suffered through error and misinterpretation almost from the beginning. So the obvious goal here is to hammer away at promoting a certain “why you should think.” No actual debate is allowed or tolerated. Sowing confusion is also part of this.

So, stop suffering and ask yourself: why has this been “debated” for years?
 
buffalo said:
You affirm loss of function once had.
Click to expand...
And the gain of a function they did not previously have: asexual reproduction. One loss, one gain.
They are not evolving, they are devolving.
Click to expand...
Their DNA has changed over time, that is evolution. Devolution is still evolution, witness cave fish which (d)evolved to lose their eyes. That is still evolution since their DNA changed. The marbled crayfish are reproductively isolated from other species, so they form a new distinct species. That is macro-evolution.
Classify them anyway you want, but it is not showing macro-evolution. You are just playing word games here.
Click to expand...
You are the one playing word games. You have redefined macro-evolution to a new meaning personal to yourself. That is Humpty Dumpty argumentation, as I said.

rossum
 
IWantGod said:
So methodological naturalism is cool when it has a practical use and when it doesn’t question your interpretation of God’s creative act.
Click to expand...
Methodological naturalism reveals God’s glory - creation. Evolution, that’s another story, in both senses of the phrase.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Aloysium:
If we go beyond the illusions, And you’d think Rossum would be on board with that, we can know reality as it is in itself…
Click to expand...
No we cannot know reality as it is. Our senses are imperfect so what we sense of reality is not reality but instead what we see ‘through a glass darkly’. Hence our internal models of reality are themselves imperfect; we see water in a mirage where there is no water in reality.

A common error is to mistake our imperfect internal model of reality for the actual external reality. Our models are good, but not that good.

rossum
Click to expand...
We truly know only the beloved, giving ourselves over to it. Models are illusions.
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
Aloysium:
Evolution, that’s another story
Click to expand...
Why doesn’t it reveal God’s Glory?
Click to expand...
It is a story without God as the central figure.

A myth constructed using scientific knowledge to give it credibility, most people cannot differentiate the two, and like yourself, think that when the illusion of evolution is rejected, so is the truth.
 
Aloysium said:
It is a story without God as the central figure.
Click to expand...
There is no scientific theory where God is a central figure in explaining the data. So you can’t use that as an excuse.

You have a special prejudice towards the theory of evolution and you have yet to give a good reason why.

It’s already been established that it doesn’t conflict with Catholic teaching so long as it is understood that God directly creates the soul and that it is not reducible to physical properties. So you can’t use Adam as an excuse.

So what is the real issue here?
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
It is a story without God as the central figure.
Click to expand...
So is gravity. So is Mathematics. So is the study of French irregular verbs. A vast amount of human knowledge does not have God as a central figure.

As IWantGod says, you need something more than, “I personally don’t like it.”

rossum
 
buffalo said:
The evolution story is not intellectually fulfilling. Intelligent design is.
Click to expand...
I would be careful. Be sure not to mistake intellectual fulfilment for bias.

And be sure not to mistake the natural theory of evolution as an alternative to God.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top