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.
buffalo said:
Really? Of course I have a problem with it. It is not true. UCD is dead.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s OK, then. For Creationists. What a lovely idea. Whenever something doesn’t agree with my views I just announce “there’s no such thing” and proceed happily on my way.
To most evolutionists, abiogenesis, UCD, and LUCA are very much alive and the subject of much research.

I must say, however, that announcing something is a ‘dead’ topic is unlikely to attract much funding for research. You still haven’t been very specific about that. If you had a billion dollars or so, what research would a Creationist spend it on, that is not already being undertaken?
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
means life never arose again spontaneously after the very first time.
Click to expand...
Why not? It is perfectly possible that life arose more than once on earth. The first appearance could have been killed off by an asteroid impact or by a volcanic eruption, leaving the way clear for a second appearance.

Once life got established and had evolved heterotrophy (eating other life) then any late-arriving newly formed life would be detected as food and eaten. How much chance would a newborn baby have against a hungry adult tiger?

Once photosynthesis evolved and the atmosphere oxygenated then the chemistry was wrong for further abiogenesis.

All life on earth is descended from one starting point. Any other starting points have no living descendants, which does not mean that they did not once exist.

rossum
 
Hugh_Farey said:
To most evolutionists, abiogenesis, UCD, and LUCA are very much alive and the subject of much research.
Click to expand...
And striking out, over and over as I have shown by recent science research articles. Research away. It is now a waste of our money with little to show for it.
 
And again…

Does ‘natural’ mean no (name removed by moderator)ut from God? I’m keen to know.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
That’s what all the evidence tells us so far.
Click to expand...
I would say rather, that the evidence is actually an illusory order that modern science imposes on reality. The evidence is determined by the theory which is upheld only by denial of that evidence which would contradict it.

What we do know is summarized in today’s responsorial psalm:
From Psalm of David - 139
You formed my inmost being;
you knit me in my mother’s womb.
I praise you, because I am wonderfully made;
wonderful are your works!
My very self you know.
My bones are not hidden from you,
When I was being made in secret,
fashioned in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw me unformed;
in your book all are written down;
my days were shaped, before one came to be.
Click to expand...
God fashions us as persons in time and space, having created us in eternity, utilizing the silent properties of nature, made visible in our imaginations through such capacities as allegory and mathematics. I believe He knits us in His image as He did the first couple, created, a new form of being, and not transformed from a previous living thing. There are no human ancestors before Adam. While attracted to the idea of seeds, and seeing that symbol repeated in scripture, I would favour the idea that our first parents were woven from one seed planted by the Holy Spirit in a hominid womb, as Christ was nurtured by our Holy Mother. That said there is no reason why God could not have brought Adam into existence fully formed as we will be in the resurrection. Either way, it doesn’t really matter. The essentials, that we are one humanity fallen in Adam to be saved and redeemed in Christ, that Eve came from Adam, and the reality of monogenism must hold. Any evolutionary theory would have to be consistent with those truths, but none do so. Instead, we are asked to distort the faith in order to lend support to human ideas, which include the requirement that we deny their inconsistencies, which extend beyond the theological and philosophical, as well as the poverty of their explanatory value.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
I would say rather, that the evidence is actually an illusory order that modern science imposes on reality.
Click to expand...
You would say that, I know, and there is certainly a sense in which I agree with it. All science is only a model of reality to help us make sense of the world about us. However, the evidence for evolution is not predicated on the theory - rather is it exactly the other way round. Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the evidence gradually led to the theory, which was not really assumed correct until long after Darwin had published his ‘imperfect abstract’.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
You would say that, I know, and there is certainly a sense in which I agree with it. All science is only a model of reality to help us make sense of the world about us. However, the evidence for evolution is not predicated on the theory - rather is it exactly the other way round. Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the evidence gradually led to the theory, which was not really assumed correct until long after Darwin had published his ‘imperfect abstract’.
Click to expand...
His primary test is the principle of continuity, in which evolution has failed miserably.
 
I agree. Something like life does not just arise. If that were true, modern scientists would be making it in the lab.
 
buffalo said:
His primary test is the principle of continuity, in which evolution has failed miserably.
Click to expand...
Clearly not. These blanket denials are no more than that, comfort blankets, to ease the pain of seeing how every scientific advance enhances, develops and more firmly assures evolution than not.
 
How can you say this? Life springs up out of dead matter every day! It’s easy as.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
All living things are descended from a single abiogenetic form of about three or four billion years ago. Absolutely correct. That’s what all the evidence tells us so far
Click to expand...
Stop saying silly, childish things.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Something like life does not just arise. If that were true, modern scientists would be making it in the lab.
Click to expand...
But you have not taken into account the fact that lifeless mud is infinitley more intelligent that any human.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
The odds are well against it happening once, much less for more than once.
Click to expand...
You talk about “odds”. Where are your mathematical calculations of those odds? Do not forget to include the effects of chemistry in your calculations.

Without showing your calculations, all you have is personal opinion, which does not go very far in a science discussion.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Hugh_Farey:
You would say that, I know, and there is certainly a sense in which I agree with it. All science is only a model of reality to help us make sense of the world about us. However, the evidence for evolution is not predicated on the theory - rather is it exactly the other way round. Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the evidence gradually led to the theory, which was not really assumed correct until long after Darwin had published his ‘imperfect abstract’.
Click to expand...
His primary test is the principle of continuity, in which evolution has failed miserably.
Click to expand...
You seem to be failing miserably in answering a simple question: Does ‘natural’ (name removed by moderator)ly no (name removed by moderator)ut from God?
 
Bradskii said:
You seem to be failing miserably in answering a simple question: Does ‘natural’ imply no (name removed by moderator)ut from God?
Click to expand...
Not sure who the “you” is in the sentence above. Probably buffalo, who is so entangled in his own arguments that he can’t see his way out of them at all.

I do wish proper Creationists were capable of more consistent thinking; although, given that they have no need of science, reason or logic, I suppose that’s an unreasonable desire on my part. But their God seems so petty, compared to mine (or even, if you were ever to personify your own prime mover, to yours). What a pity.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure how one would categorise Aloysium’s outlook on this topic — indeed, much of the time his/her prose goes right over my head — but his/her God, insofar as I discern Him, is by no means petty.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top