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.
It must somehow be able to “see” or be aware of every deed of every human being. Karrma must therefore be ominiscient.
No. All gods, humans and animals have their own individual karma. Each of us carries a record of our own karma with us as part of our makeup. That record passes from one life to the next. There is no central ‘karma-computer’ running everything.
The God of Christianity had no origin, so no explanation is possible.
As I said, you assume what you cannot prove. An obvious logical failure.
The origin of the complexity of God? What?
How complex is the Encyclopedia Britannica? Your God knows a lot more than is in the Encyclopedia, so your omniscient God is more complex than that. Any omniscient entity must be complex to enable it to hold all the necessary information.
 
There is no code in DNA, RNA or tRNA either. They are chemicals which bind in particular ways. We humans project our concept of a code onto them, but the only ‘code’ is the concept in our heads, not a property of the actual chemicals.
Still avoiding the question I see. So the DNA does not contain a blue print of the organism that directs protein and cells to behave in highly specific ways according to information that’s encoded in DNA?
 
Last edited:
As an aside, I found these illustrations of part of the process or the DNA’s “job” interesting! I hope y’all enjoy it! 🙂
 
Last edited:
Still avoiding the question I see. So the DNA does not contain a blue print of the organism that directs protein and cells to behave in highly specific ways according to information that’s encoded in DNA?
A blue print is a designed object. You have yet to show, scientifically, that DNA is designed.

At most you might want to use “blue print” as a metaphor – DNA resembles a blue print but is not an actual blue-print. You need to remember that a metaphor is not reality. Science deals with material reality.
 
A blue print is a designed object. You have yet to show, scientifically, that DNA is designed.

At most you might want to use “blue print” as a metaphor – DNA resembles a blue print but is not an actual blue-print. You need to remember that a metaphor is not reality. Science deals with material reality.
So extremely precise and descriptive information about an organism that does not yet exist in the form described is abstracted from one component in a cell, which directs the behaviour of other components to build a 3D version of the precise animal described in that component, and your best response is “it’s not a blueprint because blueprints are designed”? 🙂

Fine. Don’t use the word blueprint. Use whatever word you want: Are you denying that the DNA contains information in abstract form that is used to build a 3D organism that matches that info?
 
Last edited:
Some parts of the universe are purely material There is no need for angels to push the planets round their orbits.
An important aspect of this discussion is how we conceptualize our existence and the structures that make it what it is, including that dimension that we call the material.

I wouldn’t say “some parts of the universe are material” for example, because it sets it in opposition to the immaterial. It’s like saying some parts of the stove element are red while others are burning hot. To my way of thinking, all rests on a foundation that is Existence itself, who (to signifiy a Being greater than ourselves) brings forth everything that is, where there would otherwise be nothing.

We can understand matter as being that which we observe with the senses. Utilizing our capacity to reason, we can isolate and take measurements of such variables as mass, time, space, charge, and temperature; doing so we have discovered relationships, formulae which describe how matter behaves and interacts. The truest descriptor of the physical world is mathematics.

Beyond that knowledge and the analogies that we use to have its workings of the material world make sense, we can know the material world directly - what it is, is what we are. Containing the social sense of ourselves, developed over the years through the feed back from others, intertwined with our aspirations, capacities, and actions, is this body.

Within the unity of the person there exists our experience of the world, which connects the knower to the known. Our self exists in relation to what it is not and that relationship is determined by the structure of the body-in-the-world. These words disappear if I turn off the screen and alternatively, if I close my eyes. This visual experience is the shifting of ions through cell membranes with the release of neurotransmitters along diverse pathways in the networks that is our nervous system. It includes the monitor and the firing of cells in various locations of the brain, including those that are involved in the formation of ideas, and others which put words to them. All this physical activity is made one by the human spirit, which forms the basis of that organization, utilizing it to express itself.

We can understand ourselves to be creation itself, represented in each of us individually. We do not so much push matter to type on these keys, but rather we are matter united in one being, granted certain gifts that enable us to perceive, feel, think and act as one person.

A good way to think of matter, utilizing the metaphors available to us today, is to consider it some sort of meta-information, things brought into existance by God’s Thoughts, reflected in us as the information we carry in our minds.

It would appear that we do need angels to not only push planets round their orbits, but to make them planets in the first place. Some angels would then appear to us today as the mathematical relationships that weave this world together.
 
Last edited:
Are you denying that the DNA contains information in abstract form that is used to build a 3D organism that matches that info?
We both agree that DNA contains information. We are arguing about the source of that information: does it arise from a natural process or from design by an intelligence.

We know that natural processes, such as evolution, can increase the amount of both Shannon information and Kolmogorov information in DNA. Given that then you cannot just assume that DNA must have been designed. The presence of information, on its own, does not show design. You need to show evidence that DNA is designed.
 
To my way of thinking, all rests on a foundation that is Existence itself, who (to signifiy a Being greater than ourselves) brings forth everything that is, where there would otherwise be nothing.
That is not my way of thinking.
The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.
We project our own assumption of ontological depth onto external objects. There is no real ontological depth present in those external objects; it is purely a mental artefact. In (sort of) Thomist terms, there is no Substance, only Accident.
 
So you think God did not intend for me, you, or any specific person or living creature to exist when he created the universe? Do you think Adam was not specifically desired and intended?
I don’t pretend to know exactly what God intended.

As to the Adam & Eve narrative, if God planned it all, how does this make sense: God makes Adam and Eve, tells them not to eat the forbidden fruit, punishes them and everyone in the future when they do? So, God made them eat the forbidden fruit, according to what you posted, and then punishes everyone for that which God programmed Adam & Eve to do? To me, that turns God into some sort of schizophrenic maniac. Why would God completely make us and then condemn that which He made when we live out His programming of us?
 
We both agree that DNA contains information. We are arguing about the source of that information: does it arise from a natural process or from design by an intelligence.
No. You are also denying that this information is a code. An arrangement with meaning that refers to something other than the chemicals themselves so-arranged. That’s the point of the whole of the last stretch of this debate. You are denying it because you know the only known thing that creates code, messages, and symbols is a mind.
We know that natural processes, such as evolution, can increase the amount of both Shannon information and Kolmogorov information in DNA. Given that then you cannot just assume that DNA must have been designed. The presence of information, on its own, does not show design. You need to show evidence that DNA is designed.
Do you have evidence that amino acids or the other things you first mentioned as “evidence” created the first DNA? Why keep plain dodging if your position is so firmly grounded?

Also, you have evidence that the DNA creates meaningful arrangements outside the probabilities already existing in its 4 bits (TAGC)? Really? Do share.
 
And then you claim this is the Christian and Catholic position? Absolutely false. I highly doubt this is Jewish either. You are proclaiming the Deistic God and sneaking him into Christianity. We don’t believe in that God.
Not at all, and as a matter of fact your acceptance of “free will” undermines your assertion that God has everything planned out. IOW, you can’t have it both ways. Nor am I implying that God does not ever intervene, so that’s a false assumption on your part.

BTW, I certainly am no theologian, but I took Catholic theology classes during my undergrad years, later taught the RCIA program for 14 years, left the Church for a while as I converted to Judaism, taught the Lunch & Learn program there for about a dozen years, and then converted back to Catholicism this last summer. So, the implication that I don’t know what I’m talking about on a basic item such as this simply is wrong. I have had many conversations with Christian and Jewish theologians for roughly 30+ years now.
 
In addition, the fact that the universe is ‘becoming’ is very well embedded in Catholic thought and does not in any sense suggest, as you are, that God creates or created the universe without a specific goal.
I never said nor implied that.
 
The good news is, growing up late is better than not growing up at all.
And how exactly is a judgment and personal insult like the above in any way being Christian? Do you believe God teaches us to be moral people or not? Think about it.
 
The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.
Empty words, indeed.
 
Not at all, and as a matter of fact your acceptance of “free will” undermines your assertion that God has everything planned out. IOW, you can’t have it both ways. Nor am I implying that God does not ever intervene, so that’s a false assumption on your part.
I stated repeatedly that the only random thing in the universe is free will. I did it before your comments. This you present here is not my claim, it doesn’t affect my claim and it’s not my fault that you misread and misunderstand. So please stop with the projections.
BTW, I certainly am no theologian, but I took Catholic theology classes during my undergrad years, later taught the RCIA program for 14 years, left the Church for a while as I converted to Judaism, taught the Lunch & Learn program there for about a dozen years, and then converted back to Catholicism this last summer. So, the implication that I don’t know what I’m talking about on a basic item such as this simply is wrong. I have had many conversations with Christian and Jewish theologians for roughly 30+ years now.
I’m judging your ideas. I’ve seen far more educated people than you make far crazier statements. Arguments from authority are not the way to go unless you cite actual authority on the subject matter. In addition, you said that my position was unCatholic. It is evident yours is the unCatholic position.

The fact is, you are claiming there’s true randomness (outside free will) in a God-created universe, and that’s precisely what I’m disputing as neither Catholic, Christian, nor Jewish. You’re claiming things without will can act in genuinely random ways outside God’s intentions. That’s your claim and it’s nothing I have ever seen from the Church, saints, or mystics.
 
Last edited:
I’m going to end my participation in this discussion with this post, so let me be clear what I actually do tend to believe.

I do believe God ultimately created all but I’m not absolutely clear of His intention because that’s well beyond my pay-grade.

I do believe that God allowed some randomness to be present, but exactly how much I simply do not know. To me, making God the author and implementer of both miscarriages and serious birth defects I simply cannot accept, for examples.

Since the Church allows for the belief that the ToE is an acceptable interpretation as long as it is understood God was behind it all, is a fact, not just an opinion.

The concept that God directly plans massive killing events, such as hurricanes, tsunamis, etc., I find illogical coming from a loving God.

Finally, I am not a scriptural literalist, which will typically put me at odds with those that are.

Take care, and have a most blessed weekend.
 
That’s simply untrue. You said you believe all the changes are caused by God ultimately. He sets everything up. Unless you think he has no will or goal in setting things up, your position is self-contradiction. You want to have determination and randomness/indeterminacy, to have your cake and eat it, and that’s not possible.
When I said this^^ you accused me of believing in predestination and proclaimed it unCatholic. Now you’re saying this:
I don’t pretend to know exactly what God intended.
I don’t pretend either. I do know that God created mankind with perfect deliberation, not just Adam but each and every member of the species. That you think that’s somewhat debatable and then get offended when this is called unCatholic is extremely interesting.
 
Last edited:
The concept that God directly plans massive killing events, such as hurricanes, tsunamis, etc., I find illogical coming from a loving God.
These are the effects of original sin, and yes, they would not happen if they were not designed as real possibilities from the beginning. If that were true God would be a happless designer indeed and it’d be strange that we would believe him omniscient and omnipotent or even a true creator. I also don’t believe that God literally “kills” hurricane victims, but I can’t deny that he knew from the beginning that the way he set up the universe would result in their death and act like he somehow did not make a perfectly free choice to let that happen. Permissive will. There’s a reason we believe that God permits evil because he knows how to draw the greatest good from it. Otherwise he’d not allow it. Also, God killing people in a hurricane is possible and not morally problematic. If he did, we’d know it had to be for their good in ways we can’t see.
 
Last edited:
When I said this^^ you accused me of believing in predestination and proclaimed it unCatholic. Now you’re saying this:
I had posted that comment citing “predestination” before I read about your position on dealing with “free will” with people, so I think that’s where we disconnected.

Anyhow, take care.
 
I had posted that comment citing “predestination” before I read about your position on dealing with “free will” with people, so I think that’s where we disconnected.

Anyhow, take care.
Ok, no problem. Thanks for admitting that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top