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.
Edgar said:
  1. In a “near-death experience”, one’s brain doesn’t die - unlike in a “death experience”. So I wouldn’t read too much into accounts of such events.
  2. I have memories that haunt me like a curse. I am very much looking forward to being liberated from them when I die.
Click to expand...
My comment had to do with the nature of memory, and not particularly to speak to life after death, although that is an aspect. The point I was trying to make is that nothing coherent would have been occurring in the pus covered delerious brain during the time when the neurosurgeon, who writes about his experience, was on his “internal” journey. No such complex a “dream” could have occurred, nor could there be any memory of what seemingly transpired while he was comatose. The story brings to light the nature of these sorts of complex memories of life events, how they arise, how they are accessed and what is their object.

I’m pretty sure that you do not wish to unlearn how to ride a bike, or how to read. The memories you are speaking about, are not those that are intimately connected to perception, lasting not even a second, nor those that we keep temporarily, and discard because they would clutter our minds. It is unlikely that you would want to forget what you would have learned to carry out your work. What you wish to not be part of you, obviously has strong emotional content and is likely disorganizing, arising perhaps spontaneously from triggers you may not be able to avoid.

I don’t read minds, and am not here speaking about you but rather the human condition. The sort of memory that would haunt a person, has to do with who we are, what we have experienced and done. And, like chronic pain or any other malady, we wish it were not part of us. We tend to isolate such experiences as if they were not part of our lives; this speaks to the fragmentation these events cause within us, and what they contribute to the suffering. We seek to be whole, but think we can do so without the hurt, the fear, the guilt and shame. In the Christian symbol of the cross, we see that transcendence is achieved by taking on the suffering, in and through Jesus Christ.

Having to wrap this up, tears of joy comes to mind, where there is a recognition of both the hardships and the hard-won reward.
 
Last edited:
Questions on ID (IDvolution there areas where faith and reason intersect)

 
Last edited:
So if you are born into this life without any memories, what would problematic about being “born again” in Heaven without any memories?
 
I suppose that one either believes or doesn’t believe in the resurrection of the body. If that is the case, then what we have learned, what we have trained for mentally and physically, the events of our lives, all that we think of as memories will continue. This will be as part of a greater reality that includes an imperishable body, and a spirit, in its having surrendered itself to Love, in Jesus Christ, knows things clearly, compassionately, and acts in accordance with God’s will. We here, are spiritually evolving into that final form, which in dying to this life, will arise new and whole, as we were created in the beginning in Adam.
 
Thanks for the excellent video, summarizing the intelligent design perspective, and more importantly addressing the failings of Darwinian models, in terms of the causal origins of life, basically responding in the negative to the OP, giving us the reasons why we should not “think the Natural-Evolution of species is true”, when it is used as an explanation, not merely of the surivival of the species, but of their arrival.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Common design explains this better. The issue at hand is the lack of credibility of evolution.

The truth matters.
Click to expand...
Respectfully what does the word evolution mean?
“When something evolves it changes or develops over time…Evolve …Latin word…to unroll the perfect image to keep in mind when thinking of this verb” unquote

Evolution and survival of the fittest are not the same thing…Evolution refers to …cumulative changes… or species through live. survival of the fittest is a popular term that refers to the process of natural selection a mechanism that drives evolution changes" unquote

" A product of such development something evolves. The exploration of species is the evolution of decades of research…Biology…changes in the …gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation natural reflection and genetic" unquote

" Any posses of formation or growth development a product of such development gene pool process of gradually" unquote

Respectfully opinion only pondering on this might be a silly question, but here it goes…
A Natural Evolution, our early beginnings, evolved… where evolution changes takes place…now being fully developed have we not slowly… evolved, where evolution changes over time slowly unrolled the perfect image…a child… took place within our Mother’s womb? 🤔🤔🤔
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Sorry if …silly question. Thank you…Peace 🙂
 
Last edited:
Common design is far more reasonable than a nonintelligent process that keeps spitting out organisms into environments that cannot be known to the process.
 
rose321 said:
Respectfully what does the word evolution mean?
“When something evolves it changes or develops over time…Evolve …Latin word…to unroll the perfect image to keep in mind when thinking of this verb”
Click to expand...
As a generic term in the language, “evolution” has a more general meaning, as your quoted description shows. But in the context of this thread, evolution means something much more specific. It means the scientific theory that living species arise from inheritable mutations in older species. Furthermore the theory describes the criteria by which a few mutations persist into later generations and sometimes become dominant in the new species. It is this theory that is (or should be) the subject of this thread.
 
rose321 said:
A Natural Evolution, our early beginnings, evolved… where evolution changes takes place…now being fully developed have we not slowly… evolved, where evolution changes over time slowly unrolled the perfect image…a child… took place within our Mother’s womb? 🤔🤔🤔
Click to expand...
The development of an adult person from one fertilized egg is not analogous to the appearance of diverse living forms on earth. All the information is there, wrapped up in the simplest of human forms, ready to express itself, as it transforms matter external to its being, into its self.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Furthermore the theory describes the criteria by which a few mutations persist into later generations and sometimes become dominant in the new species.
Click to expand...
Can you give us an example of this happening today in the real world of actual macroevolution?
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Furthermore the theory describes the criteria by which a few mutations persist into later generations and sometimes become dominant in the new species.
Click to expand...
Can you give us an example of this happening today in the real world of actual macroevolution?
Click to expand...
I was only describing the proper scope of this thread. I was not putting forth any argument. I stopped reading this thread about 6 months ago, and coming back to it, I feel like, in the words of Captain B. McCrea, “it’s nice to know we are doing exactly the same things we were doing back then.”
 
Last edited:
I have read enough about evolution to know that good folks will cling to a world-view because it is comfortable to believe what everybody else believes; with evolution there is the added security of most educated people having accepted it as true. But most educated people in Jesus’ time (yes, they had them even then) did not believe that God could become man. So education is merely a means of achieving consensus. If science had stopped (as it seems to have stopped with evolution) at a consensus, we would no longer have a science, but merely an accepted world-view.
There is a crucial difference between this and the truth.
 
Fidelix said:
But most educated people in Jesus’ time (yes, they had them even then) did not believe that God could become man.
Click to expand...
That may have been true of the educated people of Greece and Rome. It was not true of the educated people of India, where the Avatars of Vishnu were a well established concept. Krishna is an obvious case in point.
 
rossum said:
Avatars of Vishnu were a well established concept
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ is God, the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, which is Love. He is not an avatar in the Hindu sense, although such points are difficult to argue since there is no equivalent to the Magisterium in Hinduism.

For the most part, although some may say that actual persons, such as Mohammed, were avatars, they are essentially mythical entities in stories that are meant to demonstrate the restoration of a moral order, the Dharma, when the world has gone too astray, They are not historical beings, but rather speak to the ontological structure of reality - the world of the Spirit, as it is understood by eastern cultures and traditions.

Jesus is the Living Way to God. We surrender ourselves to Him, becoming Love itself, on our journey, destined for communion, in and through Him, with the Triune Godhead. His body and blood are the Eucharist, which we ingest to further this process, that ultimately rests on our actions, and His grace, Together, in Love, in giving of ourselves to God and one another, we form the mystical body of Christ, the true vine, wherein we are One, while maintaining our indiviual being.

It could be said that what Hinduism describes in its mythology, finds its reality in Jesus and all who have taken Him into their hearts, expressing the Love that is God. We can all be avatars then, and Atman would be truly Brahman, where reality is grounded in Perfect Relationality as Divine Love.
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the forums.

The problem with biological understandings today is that they are forced to rely on materialistic explanations. Methodological naturalism, presupposes the nonexistence of supernatural causation, and any explanation that is not materialistically based, will automatically be relegated to the bin of pseudoscience. To be considered scientific, one must adhere to the prinicple that everything, including life, is the result of purely undirected material processes. In recent history and probably for some time to come, there is no talk of the causal origins of what is the most real of anything we know - our life. Any explanation must be reduced to how the dust of which we are formed, functions. If left at that, there would not be an issue; most of us here agree on the basic science - the genetics and fossil record. But evolutionary theories venture beyond their mandate, and themselves are pseudoscience. When attempting to describe our coming into existence, evolutionary theory, like creationism cannot offer a feasible material explanation. That is because there is none; we must go beyond those self-imposed limitations, and consider that the truth of our origins is to be found in the nature of existence itself.
 
There is a conflict between the science and certain points in Church teaching.
 
Aloysium said:
He is not an avatar in the Hindu sense, although such points are difficult to argue since there is no equivalent to the Magisterium in Hinduism.
Click to expand...
I was replying to Fidelix:
Fidelix said:
But most educated people in Jesus’ time (yes, they had them even then) did not believe that God could become man.
Click to expand...
A Hindu Avatar is, in the general sense, a god become man, and that concept has been around for a long time.

The Greeks and Romans accepted the opposite; Herakles for example was a man who became a god.

Neither can reasonably be expected to conform to a specifically Christian theology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top