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.
Edgar said:
Can you think of one reason why a young earth creationist would not make a competent doctor? I can’t.
Click to expand...
Let me see…

If I have something wrong with me then the doc has to:
  1. Take the available evidence and make logical scientific conclusions based on that evidence.
  2. Prescribe a course of action.
Someone who is a YEC has shown herself to be incapable of item 1. Hence I wouldn’t rely on her for item 2.
 
rossum said:
Oh dear. You just ignore the evidence, again. Do I have to post the link to the paper about the macro evolution of the Marbled crayfish ( Procambarus fallax ) again?
Click to expand...
Exactly, which is why some people you will never convince no matter how much evidence you would put forth. However, it’s still best, imo, to speak out as you are doing because others who may be on the fence on this issue need to see such evidence.

As you know, I went through this transition, and leaving the fundamentalist Protestant church that I grew up in and with thoughts about going into the ministry was quite painful for me and my parents. And when I converted to Catholicism at age 30, that was even more painful yet for them as they basically felt that I was being a traitor since their church and they were staunchly anti-Catholic. It literally took them a couple of decades to come around to accepting that the Catholic Church was not demonic.
 
Most people don’t care and pretty much everything we know is based on authority. Those who believe in a young earth, like everyone else, were taught about evolution during the course of probably fifteen years of high school, undergraduate and postgraduate studies in science. It would be something that may have been regurgitated in a question or two on an exam in some 101 course, but otherwise ignored or put on a back burner. One doesn’t need to believe it to know how that world view logically fits together. It most definitely is unnecessary to understand how genetics or the body work, nor the disorders that we are prone to. .
 
Edgar said:
What this has to do with my claim that there are no practical uses for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life, I have no idea.
Click to expand...
Darwin was a lay minister in the Anglican church, and it was not until the latter part of his life that he turned agnostic as he was very dismayed at how so many fellow Christians reacted to what he had proposed.

The concept of life evolving, including speciation, is an axiom within biology, and there are many scientific applications, such as how they prepare flu shots and the dangers of bacteria evolving that may not be affected by antibiotics.

IOW, it’s really all related in a huge “ball”, so it doesn’t stand in isolation.
 
rossum said:
Of course not. You cannot just redefine words to make your argument appear better.
Click to expand...
Devolution is a more accurate explanation of what is really happening. Things keep breaking but they become better by BUC. Nice story. Not believable.
 
Aloysium said:
Most people don’t care and pretty much everything we know is based on authority. Those who believe in a young earth, like everyone else, were taught about evolution during the course of probably fifteen years of high school, undergraduate and postgraduate studies in science. It would be something that may have been regurgitated in a question or two on an exam in some 101 course, but otherwise ignored or put on a back burner. One doesn’t need to believe it to know how that world view logically fits together. It most definitely is unnecessary to understand how genetics or the body work, nor the disorders that we are prone to. .
Click to expand...
The point, which you did not refute, still stands: If a person is not capable of drawing logical conclusions from evidence provided in one aspect of science, then they are not to be trusted in doing the same in any other aspect of science.

And to be clear, gaining knowledge by learning from those in authority is, apart from re-inventing the wheel yourself, is the only way we make advances in our knowledge. Appealing to authority simply on the basis that they are an authority, is a error to be avoided.

Your problem, as is the problem with the usual suspects on this dreary thread, is just the opposite. You dismiss authority. And not on the basis of greater knowledge but on personal and fundamentalist religious beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
If a person is not capable of drawing logical conclusions from evidence provided in one aspect of science,
Click to expand...
A critical step is validating the evidence and stripping away built in bias. Methodological naturalism by removing formal and final causes leaves partial answers.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
If a person is not capable of drawing logical conclusions from evidence provided in one aspect of science,
Click to expand...
A critical step is validating the evidence and stripping away built in bias. Methodological naturalism by removing formal and final causes leaves partial answers.
Click to expand...
You have spent a very long time exhibiting your lack of knowledge of the scientific process, so you comments come as no surprise.

Evidence, by definition, can contain no bias. It consists simply of facts. Here is a bone. Here is a dna comparison of apes and humans. Here is a fossil. If you propose a theory that fits the evidence better than any other theory, you win.

You may well be biased in formulating your theory. That doesn’t matter in the slightest. If it’s the best, it’s the best. Literally everything that you cut and paste (that doesn’t result in a hole in your foot) is so far behind the ones that do best fit the evidence as to be totally redundant and serve no useful purpose.

Well, except for keeping the rest of us amused.
 
It’s weird that ID is “winning” in biology when less than 1% of biologists believe in it.
 
Atreju said:
It’s weird that ID is “winning” in biology when less than 1% of biologists believe in it.
Click to expand...
Bishop Fulton Sheen, “The truth is the truth even if no one believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it.”
 
It’s one thing to say it is true, but it is another thing to say it is “winning”. It isnt winning.
 
As any serious theologian would say, there is simply no direct evidence for ID as even the general belief in God is done on the basis of faith, not empirical evidence. Is there indirect evidence for ID? Maybe so, but then maybe not. Either way, the concept that God caused all is simply not a gimme within scientific circles since there’s no solid evidence for it as such.

I believe God caused all, but I don’t believe that the Creation accounts taken literally make any sense. It defies our basic understanding of how our universe and Earth came into being if taken verse by verse in Gensis, plus it defies basic Catholic teachings that one simply cannot always use literalistic interpretations as Aquinas stated. OTOH, if viewed as being allegory, the Creation accounts make much more sense.

Either way, the issue largely discussed here in not whether God caused all but exactly how did God cause all. For one to say that the only viable interpretation is that of a literalistic one makes so little sense. Even within Judaism, there’s the teaching that one needs to look for “the meaning behind the words” and not just the words themselves.
 
Ahhhh - I see you are requiring empirical evidence. Good.

We could send God a request to lay down on a lab table for us. 😀

The general belief in God comes from evidence, logic and reason.

Catholics do not use a literalistic reading of Scripture.

Depending on provisional science is weak and not a valid approach to denying the literal meaning of Scripture and Tradition.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Depending on provisional science is weak and not a valid approach to denying the literal meaning of Scripture and Tradition.
Click to expand...
So according to you the earth is not billions of years old and the universe is not billions of years old and organisms haven’t’ existed for billions of years because that idea is not consistent with a literalistic interpretation of scripture…

You’re welcome to that belief, you’re welcome to take scripture at face value and give it authority over the scientific evidence, but it’s not reasonable to do so. It’s cognitive dissonance.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top