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.
Examine contemporary human skulls from around that are alive today. I’ve seen them. Explain the Pygmy people of Africa.
 
Exactly. No explanation will be forthcoming that can be demonstrated today. Fit today, gone tomorrow. But as you probably know, evolution can explain anything.
 
edwest said:
  • This is not about science at all but a ‘sacred’ secular program to make everyone believe that evolution, as defined here, actually happened as advertised.
  • In the interests of “engineering consent” to create a more atheist North America and in The West generally.
Click to expand...
So your whole argument rests on the idea that we are all victims of social engineering (which i think is true in some cases; it’s not impossible), in this case created by atheists to deceive us about the nature of the real world in-order to contradict the teachings of the church and destroy the faith of it’s members.
  1. The problem is, this is an inference that cannot be substantiated like most conspiracy theories.
  2. If it were true, It also would mean that any Christian Scientist including Catholics that agreed with or in anyway promoted the theory of natural evolution would either be in on it (the grand deception) or too incompetent to see that the theory has no substance (lies rarely do). It would have to be a lie immune to investigation or peer-review, unless they were in on it too. Not to mention the Catholic church would be implicit in that deception by allowing it’s members to agree with the theory.
I mean no disrespect, but this idea has the same intellectual value of a paranoid-delusion and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Having said that, the theory of evolution can be proven wrong. As @Glark pointed out, if a geneticist can show that the evolution of a new species is genetically impossible, then that would stop the theory in it’s tracks. Or if it was discovered by palaeontologists that the species we have identified in today’s world have always existed along side single celled organisms, then that would be a fatal blow to the theory of natural evolution. But even then, scientists do not have the authority to say God exists, even if God is the only logical conclusion.

Any of those two would be sufficient. But what you can’t do is assert that there is a grand deception based only on the idea that evolution is not consistent with a traditional reading of scripture, or seems to contradict a simplistic misunderstanding or straw-man of divine providence .
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your polite reply. I follow social engineering projects in the present and those from the past. I also research conspiracy theories for patterns that are typical. My comments do not fall into conspiracy theory territory. Church teaching has been posted here on a regular basis and ignored on a regular basis, so by your own statements, religion is involved in this.

No need to use lofty terms like ‘grand deception.’ Think of it this way: Teachers and Professors who are properly in line can spread this deception to hundreds and thousands of students who then pass it on. If you don’t believe me that deception has been taught for a long time, then look here:

press.uchicago.edu

Haeckel’s Embryos

Pictures from the past powerfully shape current views of the world. In books, television programs, and websites, new images appear alongside others that have survived from decades ago. Among the most famous are drawings of embryos by the Darwinist Ernst Haeckel in which humans and other...
press.uchicago.edu press.uchicago.edu
 
That’s the sort of information that guides our belief systems, individual and shared within a community, at our best striving for knowledge and truth. In that regard, Berkeley as an institution dedicated to these aims, here provides the general public with a synopsis of the modern scientific vision of how life has come to be as it is now. While evolution may be today’s interpretation of the genetics and fossil record, it is the individual who holds the belief. In spite of its widespread acceptance, reason and faith, highlight it’s failings.

The image of whale evolution is a mosaic of fragments left by creatures which once inhabited this earth, linked by a belief that over successive generations the appearance of offspring will gradually change and to a great extent over millions of years, while also remaining stable for apparently even longer periods of time.

A much better, meaning one closer to the truth, and leaving as many gaps, because that’s as much science as we know, is the vision that places God at the very Centre of this garden universe.

Through our relationship with God, we can know Him as the Source of all that is and approach an understanding of His creation as He would know it, existent with the infinite ocean of His compassion.

The belief that a rat like creature morphed into a whale is absurd given the differences in their psychophysical structure, which indicates that they are in fact different kinds of being, as we are different from them although utilizing much of the same information in constructing the various forms. Concepts such as evolution are what happens when we are lost in the dark imagining what is out there from the few fragments we have at our disposal.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
Refusal after that point is the intellectual equivalent of a three year old stamping their feet screaming “No, no, no!!!”
Click to expand...
On the other hand, I see the equivalent of three year olds who would see their parents screaming “No, no, no!!!”, but they carry on. Thinking themselves correct and oblivious to the error of their ways until they reap the consequences. There is no scientific use for evolutionary theory as there is for the genetics that it weaves into the illusion; but it does have significant moral implications.
 
Darwin himself was a critic of Haeckel’s Recapitulation Theory.

From your link:
soon after their publication in 1868, a colleague alleged fraud, and Haeckel’s many enemies have repeated the charge ever since.
Click to expand...
So science has a way of identifying these things.
 
I’m curious as to what you want to say about contemporary human skulls. There is not remotely as much variation between modern human skulls as there is between modern human skulls and human ancestors.
 
You have a habit of isolating comments you find agreeable and ignoring the rest.
 
Metis1 said:
It’s statements like the above that makes having a serious discussion with some nearly impossible, so I guess we’re permanently done as I’m not going to waste my time with even trying to explain, except for two items. To the point that I was supposedly “indoctrinated” to accept the TOE, the real answer is no as I was indoctrinated by my fundamentalist Protestant church that called it “evilution”, but when I got into looking into this in biology, then leading me to eventually getting degrees in anthropology, this is when it became clear to me that I truly had been “indoctrinated” by my old church, and this understanding within biology and related sciences that led me to choose the reality that is the ToE. And let me remind you that it was a Catholic priest that first told me that one can believe in God and evolution when I was in high school back in the early '60’s that went against what my pastor had told me personally as I had thoughts about going into the ministry. BTW, is insulting people and making sarcastic accusations against them acceptable within Catholic theology? The answer is a resounding no.
Click to expand...
That’s all fine and dandy, but you failed to explain how the “information” that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor has proven useful in applied science. I was hoping you could back up your evo rhetoric with some facts.
 
Last edited:
You earlier mentioned that the history of life on earth is useful in geology and for discovering oil deposits and things of that nature. Would you say that being able to make predictions about the history of life on earth is a use to applied science?
 
rossum said:
The appearance of a new species is, by definition, macroevolution. Microevolution is contained within a single species, eye colour in humans for example.
Click to expand...
According to the comedians down at Evolution Central, crayfish evolving into more crayfish is “macroevolution”. Delusion, but funny nevertheless.
 
Another thing I learned from this thread is that “macroevolution” is simply defined as “whatever level of evolution a creationist can plausibly pretend doesn’t happen”. First macroevolution means speciation. Once we see explicit speciation, it expands to genus. If we see a genus level split, then I’m sure it will go back up to families. I’m sure if I could take you in a time machine and let you watch entire phyla form before your eyes you’d just say “that’s just animals evolving into animals, that’s not macroevolution”.
 
Atreju said:
You earlier mentioned that the history of life on earth is useful in geology and for discovering oil deposits and things of that nature. Would you say that being able to make predictions about the history of life on earth is a use to applied science?
Click to expand...
You’ve missed the point: The history of life as revealed by fossils is certainly useful to geologist in oil,and gas exploration, but the evolutionary explanation for that history is completely irrelevant and useless. Similarly, a creationist explanation is irrelevant and useless. In other words, any explanation for the fossil record is irrelevant and useles - it is the reality of the fossil sequences that is useful and used to make predictions, not a theory about how the fossils came to be arranged in those sequences.
 
The history of life as revealed by fossils is incomplete due to how rare fossilization is. Evolutionary theory predicts how the gaps can be filled. Successfully, I might add. It allows us to predict if we dig in this place, in this layer, what kind of fossils we will find.

You don’t really seem to understand how science works. Facts alone are useless without a predictive theory. And I also find it bizarre that you have this weird hatred of history and for the idea that we should connect the dots in the history of life and try to find out why the history of life is the way it is, especially since we have this evolutionary mechanism that seems to explain it quite well and is great at making predictions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top