R
Rubee
Guest
Wow. Here I was assuming the origin of DNA was part of the evolutionary story this entire time.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Sure, it’s a question of degree. I’ll happily admit that.
As it pertains to alternatives, the ToE is a more sound theory than alternatives on how life on our planet at the present came into being. Again, it needs less “faith”.
As an aside, life evolving doesn’t destroy the sovereignty of God an more than God poof-ing it into existence by snapping his divine fingers. It’s just how the creator created.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
OOOOooooohhh. I get it. By “language”, you’re trying to talk about DNA, right?Vonsalza:
Wow. Here I was assuming the origin of DNA was part of the evolutionary story this entire time.
Do didn’t do a very good job making that bridge if I’m guessing correctly (as evidenced by the fact that I even have to guess)…
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Yeah, that’s still chemistry. Now, we’ve moved into bio-chemistry. But still no magic mystery there.Rubee:
OOOOooooohhh. I get it. By “language”, you’re trying to talk about DNA, right?Vonsalza:
Wow. Here I was assuming the origin of DNA was part of the evolutionary story this entire time.
Do didn’t do a very good job making that bridge if I’m guessing correctly (as evidenced by the fact that I even have to guess)…
R
Rubee
Guest
I love how people always go there. The assumption is that the only reason one might doubt the illogical theories being put forth is because they think it threatens God. Many people have zero problems with the idea of things evolving from other creatures. We reject the parts of it we do because theyre profoundly illogical. Not because “they threaten God’s sovereignty” I wish people would just answer the objects and leave the psychoanalysis aside.
R
Rubee
Guest
LOL. You didn’t have to guess. You had to dodge. You knew what I meant, of course, or you’d not have dove right into the “It’s chem!” shtick.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
It’s a fair rebuttal. Most deny it on purely religious grounds. But since they understand that such a basis has zero weight in a purely rational debate floor, they try to dress up their religious objection with more secular language.Vonsalza:
I love how people always go there. The assumption is that the only reason one might doubt the illogical theories being put forth is because they think it threatens God. Many people have zero problems with the idea of things evolving from other creatures. We reject the parts of it we do because theyre profoundly illogical. Not because “they threaten God’s sovereignty” I wish people would just answer the objects and leave the psychoanalysis aside.
In a word, their religious objection becomes “crypto-religious”.
I think that describes the vast, vast majority of “scientific” objections to the ToE. Especially, especially ESPECIALLY if those objections are phrased in a way to suggest total dismissal of the theory (rather than revision).
V
Vonsalza
Guest
No “shtick”. Chemistry is how DNA actually affects your living organism…Vonsalza:
LOL. You didn’t have to guess. You had to dodge. You knew what I meant, of course, or you’d not have dove right into the “It’s chem!” shtick.
R
Rubee
Guest
Chem does not create code.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
If you’re calling DNA “code”, then yes it most certainly does. And it was preceded by RNA.
Early life bore no DNA.
R
Rubee
Guest
I have always been an evolutionist and still consider myself one. (Ok, better to say on the fence but always leaned towards evolution until the study of 90% species appearing together from a few months ago) What I will NOT buy, is the idea that blind forces do intelligent things that none has ever been recorded doing ever. That’s just asking me to believe in magic and I refuse.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
And on that basis you’d have difficulty believing in anything that takes longer than your lifespan to occur and it would be impossible for you to believe anything that takes timescales so enormous that the 5000 years of recorded history itself would be just a blink of an eye.
Continental drift, the Grand Canyon, Volcanoes, Black Holes… by that standard those things don’t naturally occur either. They also had to be “poof”-ed into existence.
Continental drift, the Grand Canyon, Volcanoes, Black Holes… by that standard those things don’t naturally occur either. They also had to be “poof”-ed into existence.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
90% of the world species appearing together?
What?!?
As of this moment, 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are dead.
What?!?
As of this moment, 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are dead.
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
Nah. I have no problem believing in the big bang and a 13.5 billion year universe. And until about a few months ago, I believed in something like “guided evolution” where things only “appear” randomly/naturally caused but are really guided in ways we can’t see. I had never looked into what happens inside the DNA. In addition that study from 6 months ago made me take a pause about just going along with things just because scientists say. I understood the Church’s wisdom in not jumnping on but staying silent on the matter.
Give me a 13.5 billion year long process that makes sense, I’ll happily swallow. But asking me to believe in straight magic is something else.
Give me a 13.5 billion year long process that makes sense, I’ll happily swallow. But asking me to believe in straight magic is something else.
Last edited:
W
William_Scott
Guest
Well, other than a minor quibble—namely my belief that ToE actually requires far more faith than the alternative, I’m in complete agreement…
That said, while I agree that ToE does not necessarily infringe on God’s sovereignty, Sacred Scripture, over 1800 years of Tradition, not to mention Science, all point out that God sovereingnly took a different route.
I’ll have to bow out for now. Have a good evening.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Shatter your DNA-centric paradigm.
Early life had none.
Early life had none.
R
Rubee
Guest
But that’s the problem! If all life evolved from an original DNA, I’d not be here. I’d just stick to my latest “don’t take a position on TOE” stance. But the idea that DNA came after initial life forms puts it firmly within the TOE. Before, it had remained neatly on the Origins of life side of the problem, and I knew Darwin didn’t bother with that so separated it from TOE. Now I understand that it is a problem for the TOE because you have to explain how it “evolved” naturally from those earlier forms.
W
William_Scott
Guest
Hello Rubee, the following discussion is for another day and another thread—but you may want to continue looking critically into the whole Big Bang issue. The Big Bang is another emperor with no clothes IMHO, propped up by the a priori commitment to naturalistic origins rather than hard evidence.
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
I meant extant species. There was some kind of study I heard about and looked at from a layman’s perspective that said 90% of creatures on earth today just turned up together a few hundred to a hundred thousand years ago and had hard boundaries from species to species. That made me take a pause about going along with things TOE scientists say about the story of life on earth. I won’t dismiss it, but I’m not gonna be hoodwinked into the kind of thinking that since majority of them believe something it must be true.
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
I love the BBT! It was thought up by a priest, did you know? I frankly see it as rather Thomistic. But I get what you’re saying. I’ll look further. My understabding currently is that it’s the most rigorously established theory. I like it because it ended the “universe doesn’t need a creator because it has no beginning” materialist arguments that prevailed in the era of Newtonian physics. They’ve been trying to revive it with multiverses and all manner of such ideas ever since: they desperately want their beginningless universe at all costs, but the math has not been very compliant from what I gather.
Last edited:
- Status