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.
Aloysium said:
We are discussing reality, which is not a subjective phenomenon.
Click to expand...
Reality is reality. Metaphysics is not reality, it is something else. Reality does not conform to metaphysics. There is only one reality; there are many metaphysicses (you know what I mean). At most one metaphysics can conform to reality, and that will only be by chance because we do not yet have a complete knowledge of reality.
 
Aloysium said:
I don’t, because I believe science can reveal the truth
Click to expand...
Science can certainly reveal some truth, but unfortunately science can also include falsehoods and junk theories based on an a priori philosophical position.

Regarding evolution, science can’t reveal the truth about the supernatural process that was responsible for the fossil record. However science can reveal the truth that it is limited and can explain everything.
the ToE has no foundation, being valid only once organisms exist, and the concept of life emerging from inert matter is fatally flawed. Once one accepts that simple life forms must have been created, it is no leap to consider that the same happened with more complex living beings, especially ourselves.
Click to expand...
I totally agree; but creation, depite being a rational conclusion, isn’t science.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
The heart is a muscle. The simplest system we observe is jellyfish, which have muscles, nerves to control those muscles but no brain. They don’t have a heart as such, just fluid sloshing round the body cavity which is kept moving by ordinary muscle movements.
Click to expand...
And the evolutionary link between a jelly fish and the first organsim with a chambered heart - a fish - is what? Is there any evidence at all of such a link? If not, I suggest your jelly fish story may be worthess as a scientific theory.
Brains evolved later to provide more complex control over muscles.
Click to expand...
Well, of course they did - brains exist so they must have evolved - there is no other possible explanation!
But seriously, how might the first brain have begun, exactly?
Muscles also got more complex: legs and their attached muscles for instance. Hearts evolved to help sloshing body fluids around.
Click to expand...
You realize of course that such claims don’t add up to science and are nothing more than stories. Or are such vacuous tales typicial of what passes for “evolutionary biology”?
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
Depends on your definition of “we”, and I assume when people say such things, that the proper pronoun would be “I”.
Click to expand...
We (the human race) do not yet have a complete theory of gravity. Our current best theory (General Relativity) has known faults. Scientists are working to correct those faults with a theory of Quantum Gravity. However, they have not yet completed that new theory. Hence, presently the human race does not have a complete knowledge of reality. QED.
 
Edgar said:
And the evolutionary link between a jelly fish and the first organsim with a chambered heart - a fish - is what?
Click to expand...
Have a look at the Lancelet/Amphioxus. It is not yet a fish (no spine) and does not have a heart, but its circulatory system otherwise resembles that of a primitive fish. Like our lymphatic system, its circulatory system is pumped by ordinary muscle movements in the absence of a heart.
 
rossum said:
Have a look at the [Lancelet/Amphioxus ]Lancelet - Wikipedia). It is not yet a fish (no spine) and does not have a heart
Click to expand...
Apparently there are early Cambrian fossils of organisms very much like Lancelet … which is a start … however, such organisms are a long way from a worm and a long way from a fish.
but its circulatory system otherwise resembles that of a primitive fish.
Click to expand...
How? It doesn’t have a heart.
rossum said:
They develop in parallel.
Click to expand...
Easy to say. What made the first heart start beating?
A jellyfish has a nervous system, though not yet a brain.
Click to expand...
A jelly fish is an ancestor of fish?
rossum said:
The Christian God is a living God.
Click to expand...
Is karma a “living” thing?
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
So we know hearts have evolved because we can see the different stages in variojs organisms. From simple creatures that don’t have what could be reasonable described as a heart but which does have a system for the tranfer of fluids around the body, through to what we posess
Click to expand...
Anyone can take various organisms and line them up to form some kind of evolutionary order. The hard part is explaining how the transitional steps occurred and explaining why and how each step conferred a survival advantage. I get the impression evolutionary biology just skips over the top of these questions and relies mostly on childish oversimplification, assumptions, blind faith and the “It happened!” card to bluff its way through.
 
Edgar said:
… and here I was thinking that the Scriptures were “the word of God” - how dumb and gullible was I?
And how about those Old and New Testament writers who obviously believed Adam and Eve were real people? Those poor ignorant fools. Why would anyone trust what those dunces wrote?!
Yep, the Bible is riddled with nonsense, so let’s get rid of it and put our faith in science instead.
Click to expand...
That’s a non-sequitur as a narrative interpreted as allegory does not negate the importance and use of scripture as a teaching guide. The Church allows for allegorical interpretations, so do you think the Church throwing the Bible in the trash?
 
"But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” ( Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” ( Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).
 
buffalo said:
Typical watered down baloney…
Click to expand...
So, all the parables in the Bible are “watered down baloney” because they are interpreted as allegory, not literally.

You will miss a lot of what the Bible says that way, I’m afraid.
 
rossum said:
So, all the parables in the Bible are “watered down baloney” because they are interpreted as allegory, not literally.

You will miss a lot of what the Bible says that way, I’m afraid.
Click to expand...
Parables are identified as parables.
 
“buffalo said:
Typical watered down baloney…
Click to expand...
Maybe tell the Catholic theologians that. And maybe you think that the symbolism used in much of the Psalms, for example, is “baloney” as well? How about the symbolism in Revelation-- is that “baloney” as well?
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Parables are identified as parables.
Click to expand...
Many, if not most, are not. On top of that, the word “parable” does not mean nor imply symbolism as what it really means is that there’s a “parallel” lesson that’s inferred.

In the early Church, this was debated and, as an example, was the “Prodigal Son” real or symbolic because one can’t tell by the narrative alone. The Church’s decision is that it made no difference because the true meaning of the parable was what moral lesson was being symbolized.

Same is true with the creation accounts, namely that what really matters is not the literalistic approach of “Did this really happen?” but much more what is the author really trying to tell us in terms of the morals and values of what’s being said. By focusing only one “Did this really happen?”, one can all too easily miss what is truly important that can be used today.
 
buffalo said:
Parables are identified as parables.
Click to expand...
Here is a passage from the Old Testament that is not identified as a parable:
“For you shall go out in joy and be led back in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall burst into song, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands,” (Isaiah 55:12 )
Click to expand...
Is that passage literal or allegorical?

Not all allegorical passages are explicitly identified as such. We can use our knowledge of the world (the world that God made) to tell us when the Bible is being allegorical. Hills do not sing (insert obligatory Sound of Music joke here) and trees do not clap their hands.

It is for exactly that same reason that scientists treat Genesis as allegory, not literally.
 

This Insect Has Gears in Its Legs​

An astonishing speed of 50,000 teeth per minute speed!

“This is to our knowledge the first time that proper, engaging, counter-rotating gears have been seen in the animal kingdom,” says Sutton.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top