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.
Yes, that solid barrier between science, and razor-sharp minds, and God which is just a word. I may start saving posts where people use statements from the Church and Pope to support the theory, and posts where people denounce a Pope or a Church statement which appears to go against the theory. I think I can build a large library rather quickly.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
What if it doesn’t contain that information?
Click to expand...
If it does not contain functional complex specified information it could be a natural pattern. All patterns are not designed, but all codes, languages, symbols, plans and such always contain patterns.
Click to expand...
So an organism that doesn’t contain it wasn’t intelligently designed by God. It just happened naturally. (surely this is an either/or). Correct?
 
edwest said:
I may start saving posts where people use statements from the Church and Pope to support the theory, and posts where people denounce a Pope or a Church statement which appears to go against the theory. I think I can build a large library rather quickly.
Click to expand...
Be sure to have two lists. One where the church or the pope make scientific observations and one when they make theological ones. It will help prevent you repeating the mistake of mixing them up.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
So an organism that doesn’t contain it wasn’t intelligently designed by God. It just happened naturally. (surely this is an either/or). Correct?
Click to expand...
There is a possibility the organism could have lost all design traceability. I doubt it though.
 
Bradskii said:
Be sure to have two lists. One where the church or the pope make scientific observations and one when they make theological ones. It will help prevent you repeating the mistake of mixing them up.
Click to expand...
There are areas of intersect where both faith and reason are true.
 
“22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council’s definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.”
  • Humani Generis
 
Don’t doubt it. At one time it was thought that flies generated directly from dirty clothing. Molecule to man creation is impossible. Pure chemistry and physics are entirely inadequate. Modern-day scientists should be producing life in the lab.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
So an organism that doesn’t contain it wasn’t intelligently designed by God. It just happened naturally. (surely this is an either/or). Correct?
Click to expand...
There is a possibility the organism could have lost all design traceability. I doubt it though.
Click to expand...
So if you doubt that happened, then you are suggesting, as I said, that an organism that contains no such info was not intelligently designed by God. Is that correct?
 
Bradskii said:
So if you doubt that happened, then you are suggesting, as I said, that an organism that contains no such info was not intelligently designed by God. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
Lacking functional specified complex information reduces the odds it was designed. High levels of fsci increase the odds it was designed.
Technically a rock could be designed but it is much harder to differentiate from the background. In organisms, we see the language and codes they use. Codes, maps, symbols come from a mind. They need a sender, receiver and a key.
 
edwest said:
"22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some…
Click to expand...
That’s a theological argument. If someone quotes it in a scientific discussion, be sure to put it into the correct list.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
So if you doubt that happened, then you are suggesting, as I said, that an organism that contains no such info was not intelligently designed by God. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
In organisms, we see the language and codes they use. Codes, maps, symbols come from a mind. They need a sender, receiver and a key.
Click to expand...
That’s not what you said. You said that all codes etc contain patterns but not all patterns are designed.
buffalo said:
All patterns are not designed, but all codes, languages, symbols, plans and such always contain patterns.
Click to expand...
You said nothing about codes etc being intelligently designed. Now you are. So we need to be specific. Are you conflating ‘codes, languages, symbols, plans and such’ with complex and specific information? They are interchangeable?
 
Functional complex specified information are plans and instructions.

I have posted numerous times on fsci, codes, etc. Perhaps you should respond to the long running context in this thread.

Not all patterns are designed. Sand waves on the beach are naturally occurring patterns. We do not see high levels of fsci. But this does:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
It’s a given that all organisms contain such info (dna). Am I correct? I just need to be sure.
on this.
Click to expand...
Do you have an example that does not, you wish to cite?
Click to expand...
No. But I would like your confirmation on this. It seems that you class dna as an example of the complex and specific information (being codes, patterns and plans) we have been discussing.

Is that correct?
 
Bradskii said:
No. But I would like your confirmation on this. It seems that you class dna as an example of the complex and specific information (being codes, patterns and plans) we have been discussing.

Is that correct?
Click to expand...
I am specifically speaking of the arrangement and use of the DNA and related structures.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
No. But I would like your confirmation on this. It seems that you class dna as an example of the complex and specific information (being codes, patterns and plans) we have been discussing.

Is that correct?
Click to expand...
I am specifically speaking of the arrangement and use of the DNA and related structures.
Click to expand...
So organisms that contain dna contain the complex and organism specific codes, plans and patterns we have been discussing.

Interesting…
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top