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.
In the vast majority of cases it is virtually impossible to determine if a supposed event actually occurred, which is why I use terms like “lean” or “drift” etc in regards to where I’m coming from. What’s very important to me is what the basic messages dealing with general beliefs and basic morality are.

To put it another way, I treat all narratives as being allegorical, and then I focus on the basic lessons and see what’s useful. An imprecise art, no doubt.

Thanks for clarifying your positions.
 
Rubee said:
Interesting. This whole time I thought you were Catholic.
Click to expand...
I actually reconverted (long story) back to the Church this last summer, and I did talk with my priest about the fact that because of my science background that it is natural for me to question just about anything and everything. However, I told him that I can commit myself to the Church and especially try to do my best to help others, and he gave me his blessing and has allowed me to resume the sacraments.

Quick background on this: I was active in a fundamentalist Protestant church until my mid-20’s but left because of the anti-science teachings of that church plus another problem as well. I converted to my wife’s Catholicism when turning 30, ended up several years later teaching the RCIA program for 14 years, converted to Judaism around my turning 50 and co-taught our Lunch & learn program alternating with my rabbi. But then a series of events led me back to the Church, and that process took almost three years. Now my priest wants me to resume teaching the RCIA program, but I told him I’d rather just take one step at a time. Maybe next year’s group? I dunno.
 
Hello there, i personally think that the ID and creation is currently the best explanation, ToE has too many holes and sounds even more fairy-tale like than “grandpa the sky” 😆. Just started reading the lastest Behe’s book “Darwin Devolves” - it’s a pretty good position.

Btw. There is not even a single peer-reviewed published explanation for the evolution of any single bio-chemical system… (Miller–Urey experiment failed miserably trying to explain the origin of life) Lenski’s bacterias don’t prove evolution, they lose information, mutations are within already existing genefic information (no new information arose) and… they still remain bacteria - Drosophila melanogaster the same… + The Junk DNA was proven to be just a myth… - Genome is degenerating in time (probably the consequence of the sin) And there is still the other side of the ToE i.e. links with Freemasonry, Erasmus Darwin and the Royal Society (animalizing people).
Not even asking how did sex originate… Where does morality come from… How does matter “understand” and be “conscious”?

I don’t know if i am right but there is one thing that is very fascinating: If a harmful mutation (they are the most common) gives an advantage in surviving - this would mean that evolving is leading to self-elimination caused by too many harm mutations degenerating the base genome…

Also the forbidden archeology makes another point too…
Similarity does not mean kinship - or maybe this means a common Creator?

For me ToE is more like a philosophical concept than a scientific theory, it is not falsifiable, empirical and observable. I don’t understand why people are so raging when someone criticizes ToE…

Creation and ID can be much more scientifical and make much more fun to understand and discover the God’s work.

Many people understand creationism wrong: I don’t know how this happend “so GOD”. This is wrong!
If you believe in God, it’s obvious that at the end there always is God…
The difference is:
Believers: God did it.
Atheists: Happened by accident… Since when is this more scientifical than God’s creation?Bruh… This is a pure materialistic view.

Of course there is Theistic Evolution… and EVOLUTION DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD! This is just an atheistic agenda…

I just think that ID and Creation is a better worldview for scientists than Evolution…

People should have choice:
  • I learn creation
    or
  • I learn evolution
Every “Evolution” i used stays for Macroevolution. This is only my point of view. (I’m not discrediting anything)

Peace!
 
Last edited:
Gigas97 said:
ToE is more like a philosophical concept than a scientific theory, it is not falsifiable, empirical and observable. I don’t understand why people are so raging when someone criticizes ToE…
Click to expand...
Excellent…
 
Aloysium said:
40.png
Bradskii:
It’s beyond astonishing that so many people can argue for so long about a subject that they don’t understand.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s astonishing at all that people will perpetually argue that the other person doesn’t understand the subject matter, when they lack an understanding sending of what the other person is saying, even to the point that it sounds like word salad, and has little appreciation for human nature.

TLDNR - I may not be following my adivice here, but let’s try to stick to the arguments
Click to expand...
If someone doesn’t understand how evolution works (like Edgar) then it’s not unlikely that someone is goint to point that out (like me). And that is plainly obvious from his posts, specifically the one to which I was responding. No ambiguity there. No crossed wires. No loss of meaning in translation. No philosophical ambiguity.
 
Aloysium said:
Both the ToE and creationism have to do with a global understanding of our world and its foundations. They themselves have no practical use; it is the science which they both interpret that leads to innovations in the various fields within medicine.
Click to expand...
As regards the ToE, your comment is akin to saying that the theory of gravity has no use - it’s only the science which we get from it is of any use. And you have been given multiple examples of the scientific uses ofnthe ToE.

And we were not comparing it to creationism but ID. Creationism is God’s work. Apparently we don’t know who’s responsible for ID.

But I’m still keen to know to what practical scientific use ID can be put.
 
Gigas97 said:
I don’t know if i am right but there is one thing that is very fascinating: If a harmful mutation (they are the most common) gives an advantage in surviving - this would mean that evolving is leading to self-elimination caused by too many harm mutations degenerating the base genome…
Click to expand...
No, you are wrong. Harmful mutations are simply that. Harmful.

But don’t worry - there are quite a few people on this thread that don’t understand evolution. But it does lessen the weight of any argument you make if you don’t.
buffalo said:
40.png
Gigas97:
ToE is more like a philosophical concept than a scientific theory, it is not falsifiable, empirical and observable. I don’t understand why people are so raging when someone criticizes ToE…
Click to expand...
Excellent…
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for Giga, that just emphasises my point.
 
Last edited:
Nope, and even as a Protestant many decades ago I didn’t take that position. Nor did I or do I accept the concept of biblical inerrancy.
 
Gigas97 said:
  1. For me ToE is more like a philosophical concept than a scientific theory, it is not falsifiable, empirical and observable. I don’t understand why people are so raging when someone criticizes ToE…
  2. Creation and ID can be much more scientifical and make much more fun to understand and discover the God’s work.
Click to expand...
  1. The ToE is certainly not “philosophical” as it is based on using the scientific method, not personal opinions. I took a couple of classes on philosophy during my graduate studies and they simply do not operate on the same basis as science.
  2. I.D. is not “scientific” but those in pseudo-scientist will tell you otherwise, including Behe. If you want to see that displayed with Behe, read the account of his behavior in the Dover (Pa.) case whereas a conservative and Christian judge lambasted his behavior that included his lying under oath. Wikipedia actually covers that case quite well, btw, so you might want to check it out.
 
Metis1 said:
The ToE is certainly not “philosophical” as it is based on using the scientific method,
Click to expand...
No matter, it is not empirical, that is observable, repeatable and predictable. It is a one time event and is historical science.
 
Metis1 said:
I.D. is not “scientific” but those in pseudo-scientist will tell you otherwise, including Behe. If you want to see that displayed with Behe, read the account of his behavior in the Dover (Pa.) case whereas a conservative and Christian judge lambasted his behavior that included his lying under oath. Wikipedia actually covers that case quite well, btw, so you might want to check it out.
Click to expand...
Forget Dover. So much new info has arisen since then.

If one studies a bullseye and counts the number of times there is a hole in the center and plots it on a graph, it is science. From the data he can calculate the odds that the same shooter will hit the bullseye.
 
buffalo said:
No matter, it is not empirical, that is observable, repeatable and predictable. It is a one time event and is historical science.
Click to expand...
False on both counts, and we know that with well-established facts.

One thing I was going to try and find time to do earlier this week was to go through the 1:1 creation account one verse at a time, and then critique that from known and well-established science, but this week has been just crazy, so maybe the earliest I can get to it would likely be next Monday.
 
Go through the Creation account? Why? It’s obviously not science according to some here. As far as I can tell, it boils down to two things:
  1. Your Bible is rubbish.
  2. Atheism is good.
 
Yes, past events are not observable. Good conclusions require a great deal of context the further back scientists go. Fossils are found, but they need to be correlated to the environment at the time. There is still no explanation for polystrate trees which pass through multiple strata and which were buried quickly since they did not rot.
 
edwest said:
Go through the Creation account? Why? It’s obviously not science according to some here. As far as I can tell, it boils down to two things:
  1. Your Bible is rubbish.
  2. Atheism is good.
Click to expand...
Straw man. Evolution does not deny God - only fundamentalist interpretations of scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top