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.
Did you even read the links I posted from the literal University or California and Nature journal? Or should I treat random conspiracy blogs as being equal to these sources?

Why are you so resistant against reality?
 
The ID conspiracy theory literally does think that God’s a magician though.

Your beliefs are not Catholicism.
 
PhiriTalk said:
Why are you so resistant against reality?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Why are you?

Catholics by definition believe in God as an intelligent rational being, Pope Benedict XVI refers to as the “creative reason”. He is the creator of the universe. It can be studied because it is intelligible. Are we together so far?
 
The website you linked me to is literally your blog! Lol. You’ve got to be kidding me. It’s full of YouTube videos and conspiracy theory ramblings, no peer reviewed research in sight.
 
I’m not. I accept the theory of evolution.

“Intelligent design” is antithetical to Catholic doctrine. Plain and simple. Stop trying to force your fringe theories on Catholics.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
PhiriTalk:
What about the evidence which I literally just posted? You can’t reject facts just because they don’t fit with your agenda bud.
Click to expand...
What have you just posted that is proof of macro evolution above the family level?
Click to expand...
You can’t even get your taxonomy correct. I need to tell you what you are looking for.

You are looking for examples of evolution that shows speciation. Not anything at the level of order (which is above the family level). If you were shown examples of evolution below the level of family - at the level of genus for example, then it might well indicate a new species.

OK. Lesson over. As you were.
 
PhiriTalk said:
no peer reviewed research in sight.
Click to expand...
It is all over the site. Most youtube videos are the authors themselves explaining their papers. Look a little closer. This is 2019, and how much info is communicated. Get with it.

Now we can get to the specifics.
 
I don’t trust conspiracy websites and random YouTube videos.

I trust actual peer reviewed research. Your website has none.
 
Because the Catholic Church accepts reality. Evolution is an extremely well established theory.
 
PhiriTalk said:
I don’t trust conspiracy websites and random YouTube videos.

I trust actual peer reviewed research. Your website has none.
Click to expand...
I’ll tell you what it does have. A lot of information that Buffalo doesn’t understand.

On his main page exaplaining what (ahem) idvolution is, he uses a quote from Sir Roger Penrose. Who, it must be said, is a man who deserves to be listened to. And the quote runs:

‘This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 10123rd power. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0’s." Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we would fall far short of writing down the figure needed.’

Cont’d below…
 
Now a couple of things about this quote. First I’m not sure that Penrose actually said it. Because writing a 1 followed by 10,123 zeroes would take you about an hour and a half.

Secondly, this quote has zero relevance to evolution. Penrose is using it in relation to the big bang and entropy. Shall we be generous and say that Bufallo got this quote from another anti-evolution blog and copied it without any thought whatsoever? Yeah, we’ll do that as opposed to any suggestion that he knew but thought no-one would check.

Thirdly, these amazing figures that Penrose is throwing around giving the creator a magnificent aim is actually proving that to be not the case. In regard to entropy! There is no connection whatsoever with anything whatsoever to do with any aspect of evolution in any way shape or form.

" Penrose is not arguing that this number represents the actual degree of fine tuning, but rather that to show that our universe cannot have had the consistent rate of entropy usually assumed. He goes on to say:
But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint
Click to expand...
WEYL = 0
Click to expand...
(or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.
Click to expand...
The entire point of his raising this number is to argue that it does not describe reality, but to illustrate that it demands a constraint:
The assumption that this constraint applies at any initial (but not final) space-time singularity, I have termed The Weyl Curvature Hypothesis. Thus, it would seem, we need to understand why such a time-asymmetric hypothesis should apply if we are to comprehend where the second law has come from.
Click to expand...
The answer to your question is, then, no. It is not true. Penrose does not argue that this number represents the probability for the existence of our universe, but rather that this must be true of a universe in which entropy maintains a constant rate. His Weyl Curvature Hypothesis argues that this is not true of our universe, but that our universe instead has experienced different rates of entropy." Roger Penrose said that the chances for our universe to be in the low entropy like now is (10^10) ^123 to 1. Is this true? - Quora

Way to go, Buff! And on the page explaining idvolution as well. For all the relevance that quote has you might just as well have put up a quote from Beyonce.

Please explain…
 
Last edited:
PhiriTalk said:
I don’t trust conspiracy websites and random YouTube videos.

I trust actual peer reviewed research. Your website has none.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. Look at the links to the papers directly. If you do not want to that is OK.

I will cite them directly when needed.

Do you trust Nature magazine?
 
PhiriTalk said:
Wait, do you think that YouTube videos are peer reviewed?
Click to expand...
Let’s not be foolish. Th authors often lecture on their papers at various conferences. In the video itself the paper links are shown. You would know this if you ever looked.
 
I looked on your website and found no peer reviewed papers.

I do trust Nature magazine. It’s actually one of, if the most respected journals in the scientific community. Why wouldn’t I trust the scientific community?
 
PhiriTalk said:
I do trust Nature magazine. It’s actually one of, if the most respected journals in the scientific community. Why wouldn’t I trust the scientific community?
Click to expand...
So if I show you papers that appear in Nature you will actually read them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top