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.
Which part of the spectrum would you use? Light waves, perhaps?
Light does carry information.

Let’s go back to Mt Rushmore.

We have the background design, then the faces emerge and are very distinct. The amount of information those faces project is enormous.

The faces project the history, a person, a unique person, accomplishments, why we eve put them up there, and so much more.

I wonder if a facial recognition AI program could help us here.
 
I believe that the conflict is that some within the scientific community are committed to an atheistic approach.
 
Light does carry information.

Let’s go back to Mt Rushmore.

We have the background design, then the faces emerge and are very distinct. The amount of information those faces project is enormous.

The faces project the history, a person, a unique person, accomplishments, why we eve put them up there, and so much more.

I wonder if a facial recognition AI program could help us here
Yes, indeed, light does carry information. But can you not agree that the information you describe as projected in fact resides not in the light but in our perceptions, our experience, our history and culture?
 
Ok, thanks…how about you explain how it works, and I’ll ask some detail questions
No, I’m afraid not. I’ve been sucked (suckered?) into that process before, and it was unproductive. In any case, I am not the right person for such a task: if I have any expertise (which you may well doubt) it is not in biology.

I can heartily recommend reading. It will not be difficult for you to find online an account of the basics of evolutionary theory. When you have absorbed such an account I’ve no doubt the scientists on this forum would be happy to answer any questions that might remain.
 
40.png
Techno2000:
Ok, thanks…how about you explain how it works, and I’ll ask some detail questions
No, I’m afraid not. I’ve been sucked (suckered?) into that process before, and it was unproductive. In any case, I am not the right person for such a task: if I have any expertise (which you may well doubt) it is not in biology.

I can heartily recommend reading. It will not be difficult for you to find online an account of the basics of evolutionary theory. When you have absorbed such an account I’ve no doubt the scientists on this forum would be happy to answer any questions that might remain.
One can’t go wrong starting here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

Don’t come back until you’ve read it all, Techno. And in the linked pages are all the answers to any questions you will have. See you later in the year.
 
Last edited:
There are orderings to the cosmos far beyond those of simple material substances, and include this very discussion. To study the structure of what is going on here includes what we might lump into categories such as the psychological and metaphysical, not considered science by some, but necessary knowledge nonetheless. Outside of that context, science is an empty distortion of reality.

The “device” of which you speak has been in existence for many millenia - the human mind.

It needs to be “calibrated”, which involves not only education but a considerable degree of self-reflection. There also has to be a certain amount of reasoning capacity in order to detect these “signals”.

The “device” organizes perceptions of what is other to our selves into a recognizable form that reveals its superficial material structure. It proceeds beyond immediate manifestations of that connection, to formulate a picture of what the thing is in space and time; e.g. the rising and setting of the sun and where on the horizon those events happen at different times of the year. We bring together shared data to arrive at a deeper understanding of the relationship between the earth and the sun. Doing all this we push past the superficial perception into a greater appreciation of the larger structure of complex events. Through this process we come to identify and understand the nature and behaviour of various elements to their atomic level. Knowing what they do, we can manipulate matter to do what we want. Knowing how matter behaves and something of the earth sciences, we can figure out how landforms came to be.

Back to Mount Rushmore, we know it to have the form of human faces. Such phenomena can be projections onto objects such as a knot of wood or swirls in marble. Usually these are distorted images that we typically understand to be illusions, the result of haphazard occurences that do not contain an intrinsic meaning, but having one read into them. Analyzing the mountain before and after it was sculpted, we may say that there is no difference in terms of the complexity of the orientation of molecules that comprise its physical form. The complexity lies its overall form - same trees, but a different forest, which some may not be able to see because of the trees.

We know through historical documents that Mount Rushmore was constructed, as we know, through what has been passed on from our beginnings, that this world was created by God. We know by the image imbedded in the rock that it must have been designed. Having some understanding of how the universe came to be, although much of our current understandings may not endure the passage of time, we can more or less trace back the simple-complexity that is the body-spirit unity of ourselves as persons-in-the-world, temporally and ontologically, to see how the whole system of necessary and interdependent components that make up all of creation, comes together. As we look at Mount Rushmore and know that it has been designed, our mind informs us that so too was all this wonder in which we participate.
 
Last edited:
Some of that, at the very least, is true. But it doesn’t much help buffalo’s search for a science research grant.
 
This is where the claim of natural selection acting on random mutation doesn’t actually prove what it sets outs to, but merely assumes it.
Is funny you should say that, because one of The Five Pillars of Evolution Science is “Baseless Assumption”.

The other four are:

Rank Speculation
Vivid Imagination
Wild Extrapolation
Blind Faith
 
The paper itself, rather than the article from which the quote was taken, says: “Our data support an evolutionary scenario whereby novel (hence strain-specific) protein-coding genes could randomly emerge from non-coding intergenic regions, then become alike protein-coding genes of older ancestry […] For a long time considered unrealistic on statistical ground, the notion that new protein-coding genes could emerge de novo from non-coding sequences started to gain an increasing support following the discovery of many expressed ORFan genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Drosophila, Arabidopsis, mammals, and primates. This hypothesis was recently extended to giant viruses.”

Notice use of the word, “hypothesis”. That is all evolution science is - endless hypotheses that can’t be tested and contribute nothing to the advancement of science. Blah, blah, blah … :poop:🚽
 
Last edited:
Evolutionists like to insist that natural selection is not a random process (as if it matters whether it is or not). But the effects of natural selection depend 100% on the characteristics of the environment. The characteristics of the environment are random, therefore natural selection is ultimately random.
 
Last edited:
Not that any of this is necessarily true, or indeed that you are qualified to say whether its true or not, by your own admission.
A professor of biochemistry who believes life arose naturally from inanimate matter is clearly of inferior intelligence to a even a primary-schooler who doesn’t.
 
Perhaps, but the retort to your “issue” is the law of proportionate causality, which puts forth the proposition that you cannot get more in the effect than the cause is capable of bringing about. At its most basic it could be expressed as ex nihilo nihil fit or from nothing nothing comes.
When it comes to the origins of life, atheists aren’t interested in reason. They prefer magic and superstition - anything but believe in a Creator who is greater than the creation.
 
It is a poetic way of saying that out of one celled creatures (formed in what would commonly be called slime aka mud)
It may be poetic, but the your evo’ interpretation renders the text rather illogical. If Adam was the offspring of a living creature, he was obviously alive when he was born, so why does the Scripture say that after God breathed into his nosrils, Adam “became a living being”? Are you saying Adam was already alive at birth and then later he “became” alive?

Genesis 2:7 makes sense only if Adam was not alive, but then “became” alive. In other words, God took inanimate matter (“dust of the ground”) and fashioned into a living being.
 
Okay, please explain why Borel chose to compare the formation of living matter to - of all things - the formation of crystals?

Golly gosh, do you think it just might have something to with the capacity of crystals to “self-replicate”? :roll_eyes:
 
When it comes to the origins of life, atheists aren’t interested in reason. They prefer magic and superstition - anything but believe in a Creator who is greater than the creation.
It is they who have “blind faith”. Evolution just has to be true? Ahhhhh, what do I do? Help me? I cannot let the Divine foot in the door.
 
I will have to say that I do not know. I wasn’t around then. However the narrative is compatible with a kind of evolution. God created everything in stages. And this evolution represents a development from one stage to another, culminating with the creation of man.
 
this evolution
It’s difficult to have a meaningful discussion around a word rather than a clear idea.

I’m pretty sure most here would agree with you that
God created everything in stages
The topic of the OP, which we get to from time to time, is whether “Natural-Evolution”, again whatever that means, is true.

Is all his glory and wonder reflective of the random activity of built-in attributes of matter, that which the natural sciences study empirically, shaped by natural selection, aka death?
 
Last edited:
I will have to say that I do not know. I wasn’t around then.
That’s why the good Lord recorded what happened in a book we can all read.
However the narrative is compatible with a kind of evolution. God created everything in stages. And this evolution represents a development from one stage to another, culminating with the creation of man.
Genesis 1 could be interpreted that way, I suppose, although I think it’s a weak argument and is contradicted by Genesis 2:7, Exodus 20: 8-11, Mark 10:6 and the genealogies in Gen 5 and Luke 3 - for starters.

It wouldn’t make much sense to create man first, on a barren earth, would it?
 
Last edited:
It could be said that the evolution of life was related to the providence of God in preparation for the creation of man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top