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.
Please refrain from stealing my ideas and rehashing them for your own gain and glory and fortune - have you not heard of intellectual copyright laws?
 
Curious11 said:
Science does not assume no designer. Intelligent design is a hypothesis, but that’s all it is.
Click to expand...
Claiming a designer is necessary for the existence of complex, interdependent systems (as is evident in a living cell) is merely an “hypothesis”? That thought might make sense to an atheist, but not to a rational thinker.

And how can an atheist possibly accept any theory of Intelligent Design when he is philosophically opposed to it? To an atheist, evidence of design (as presented by science) doesn’t even enter the equation.
Until compelling proof is provided
Click to expand...
Aren’t scientific theories dependent on evidence, not proof?
it will remain a hypothesis like panspermia, for example.
Click to expand...
A poor and unfair comparison.😝:alien:
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
A theory is not a law. Scientists can dream up all manner of theories about how life arose from mud, but that doesn’t mean anything; it’s just talk.
Click to expand...
The words ‘theory’ and ‘law’ have slightly different connotations in science, but often come to much the same thing. The point is that, having dreamt them up, scientists can investigate whether they mean anything by referring to observations, and to general scientific consensus. If they fit both, then they become part of the ocean of explanation we call science. If not, then the dreamer must modify or reject them.
 
Glark said:
And how can an atheist possibly accept any theory of Intelligent Design when he is philosophically opposed to it? To an atheist, evidence of design (as presented by science) doesn’t even enter the equation.
Click to expand...
And how can a Creationist possibly accept any theory of Evolution when he is philosophically opposed to it? To a Creationist, evidence of evolution (as presented by science) doesn’t even enter the equation.

Ooops! I’m doing it again…
 
Glark said:
Jesus said Adam and Eve existed at “the beginning of creation” (Matt 10:6),
Click to expand...
It actually reads, “Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” Initially I typed in 10:16, which is “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.“ It doesn’t seem to be inappropriate, but I’m sure you meant Mark 10:6.
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Click to expand...
We are all going to interpret this differently, which is why we have a Magisterium, to provide us with assistance, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, to understand what was written in terms of our modern perspective of the world. I suppose that if someone is fixated on their version of evolutionary theory, the least they can do is submit to the truth that God did it.

My interpretation would be something along the lines of God’s having conceived of Adam and Eve at the beginning of this all. They, and we in them, are the purpose behind creation. Our destiny to become Christ-like, was rejected in the Garden, but through His incarnation, sacrifice and resurrection, we can now journey towards. We are created in the image of God - one humanity, self-other, united in Love.

Hmm, I just noticed this post is numbered 666. I did play the fiddle for a couple of years at some point in my youth, attracting the cats in the neighbourhood and causing my dad to find excuses for going out. I don’t live in Rome and nothing is burning around me. Haven’t been persecuting Christians. So, I guess it’s all good. It does bring to mind how in our ignorance we can look for hidden clues and meanings that can lead us astray. We can find also false sense of the truth in materialism, which provides an illusion of concreteness.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
Claiming a designer is necessary for the existence of complex, interdependent systems (as is evident in a living cell) is merely an “hypothesis”?
Click to expand...
Is your proposed designer a “complex, interdependent system”? The ID hypothesis of an intelligent designer cannot explain the origin of intelligence, obviously, and – assuming the designer is alive – cannot explain the origin of life either.

One of my issues with ID theory is that ID proponents use a complex intelligent (and usually living) designer to ‘explain’ the origin of complex living and sometimes intelligent organisms. That smacks too much of the logical error of Petitio principii, assuming what you should be proving.

rossum
 
Last edited:
God is Existence itself - knowing, acting Being, triune in nature as Love - One, the eternal Cause of all life, all that exists in every moment and every place. We are known and loved as we are brought into being in this moment as we are in every moment that forms the trajectory of our lives. It is by that knowledge that we can know. In our complexity of being, a union of body and spirit, each as one individual person in relation to what is other to ourselves, we here see this monitor understand something of the words that are contained on the screen, have feelings about and can act on them. All this happens as one living being, the object of God’s infinite compassion. The “Designer” is not complex, although what is created may be excedingly so. He is understood to be simpler than any idea that we, as persons, may have and proceed to elaborate into a Michaelangelo sculpture, the great wall of China or the space shuttle. Beyond any words or ideas that desire to approach Him, is the immutable Ground of all being, everything that is. This attempts to describe the ultimate Truth, beyond any form of proof, which can only be secondary. He may be realized and He has revealed Himself to individuals and to all of us as a community. Search and you will find.
 
Last edited:
“This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 10123rd power. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0’s.” Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we would fall far short of writing down the figure needed.1

Roger Penrose - English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science
1 (References: Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind, 1989; Michael Denton, Nature’s Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9)
 
rossum said:
That smacks too much of the logical error of Petitio principii , assuming what you should be proving.
Click to expand...
Apply this to evo claims. Over and over we hear evolution is the basis all biology is based on,
 
Hugh_Farey said:
And how can a Creationist possibly accept any theory of Evolution when he is philosophically opposed to it? To a Creationist, evidence of evolution (as presented by science) doesn’t even enter the equation.

Ooops! I’m doing it again…
Click to expand...
False, the evidence of micro-evolution (aka adaptation) by science is well accepted.
 
Glark said:
Common sense suggests that the chances of discovering a chest full of gold buried under one’s house is too miniscule to be taken seriously, but if that’s what one wants to believe, then one will believe it.
Click to expand...
What Borel pointed out was that any calculation of probabilities has to take account of circumstances. In the case of evolution, he said, we were not dealing with pure chance, but with gradual changes over time, with the guidance of selection, and with the natural properties of matter and of living matter.

So it is with the buried gold. I would guess that the likelihood of finding buried wealth in Australia is substantially less than the likelihood of finding it in England. Indeed hoards of buried wealth are turned up fairly frequently in Europe: hoards of thousands of silver coins turn up reasonably often, because in centuries past burial was a common form of protecting wealth.

So while the chest of gold, or at least a vast accumulation of wealth, is an unlikely find anywhere, it is I suggest considerably more likely in England than in Australia, and by no means impossible. Take the circumstances into account, that’s the message.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 10123rd power. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0’s.”
Click to expand...
This is a common misquote, invariably used by people who have either never read Roger Penrose’s book, or who have failed to understand it, or hope that it supports Creationism, or guess that it doesn’t but hope that they can fool someone else into thinking it does, and so on and so on.

I could write 1 followed by 10123 successive 0’s very easily. So could you. It would take less than an hour. With a computer it’s a doddle.

I wish Creationists wouldn’t just quote mine and quotebomb so indiscriminately, particularly in the presence of people who actually know what they are talking about. Still, that’s Creationism for you.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
his is a common misquote, invariably used by people who have either never read Roger Penrose’s book, or who have failed to understand it, or hope that it supports Creationism, or guess that it doesn’t but hope that they can fool someone else into thinking it does, and so on and so on.
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah. This is your common tactic. Well, tell us now exactly what he was getting at.
 
Pandoravirus: Giant viruses invent their own genes

Furthermore, these new members contain a large number of orphan genes, i.e. genes which encode proteins that have no equivalent in other living organisms (this was already the case for the two previously discovered pandoraviruses). This unexplained characteristic is at the heart of many a debate over the origin of viruses. What most surprised researchers was that the orphan genes differed from one pandoravirus to another, making it less and less likely that they were inherited from a common ancestor!

Loading…

www.sciencedaily.com
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
It actually reads, “Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” Initially I typed in 10:16, which is “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.“ It doesn’t seem to be inappropriate, but I’m sure you meant Mark 10:6.
Click to expand...
Woops! Yes thanks; I meant Mark 10:6, “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top