Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[IWantGod]

Does this include respecting ALL behavioral choices?

Of course not. I suppose it is possible for any principle to become warped in peoples understanding of it.

But still it’s not some arbitrary rule used to control people i don’t think.

For example. Nobody respects murder. But, so long as they are no-longer a threat it is reasonable to treat murderers with dignity.

That’s not political correctness gone mad.

We can disagree with peoples actions, but even Christianity says Scorn is immoral.

 

[buffalo]

Of course not. I suppose it is possible for any principle to become warped in peoples understanding of it.

But still it’s not some arbitrary rule used to control people i don’t think.

For example. Nobody respects murder. But, so long as they are no-longer a threat it is reasonable to treat murderers with dignity.

That’s not political correctness gone mad.

We can disagree with peoples actions, but even Christianity says Scorn is immoral.

Call me relieved.

 

[edwest211]

You forgot Ed Sullivan.

 

[Bradskii]

You forgot Ed Sullivan.

Sorry. There’s me thinking you rejected all this new fangled ‘rock and roll’. The Doors (you probably will have to look up why they were called that), the acid dropping Beatles, the degenrate Stones…all good family entertainment. Was it?

It seems to be to you. You’ve included him in the list.

How little you know.

 

[edwest211]

Poke, poke. Prod, prod. Ed Sullivan: “Presenting, the Beatles!” I Wanna Hold Your Hand, She Loves You. They started out just fine.

Jim Morrison. It was obvious what he was singing about. Didn’t care much for The Doors.

The Rolling Stones. From time to time, they produced good songs. Before appearing on Ed Sullivan, they had to agree to change the words “Let’s spend the night together” to “Let’s spend some time together.” Mr. Sullivan and company did the right thing.

 

[Bradskii]

Poke, poke. Prod, prod. Ed Sullivan: “Presenting, the Beatles!” I Wanna Hold Your Hand, She Loves You. They started out just fine.

Jim Morrison. It was obvious what he was singing about. Didn’t care much for The Doors.

The Rolling Stones. From time to time, they produced good songs. Before appearing on Ed Sullivan, they had to agree to change the words “Let’s spend the night together” to “Let’s spend some time together.” Mr. Sullivan and company did the right thing.

Oh dear. You didn’t recognise the slippery slope. Yeah, the Doors…not so fussy says Ed. But named after the Doors of Perception by Huxley. Noting but a promo for mind altering drugs. But you didn’t know that.

How about Little Red Rooster by the Stones. Know what that was about? Probably not.

And those cute mop heads from Liverpool. When did you realise they were subversive, Ed? How come you let your kids buy the early albums? Didn’t you know where it was leading? I guess not. Fooled with the rest of your generation. Which I think was mine as well.

Guess you need to be in the mix to see where things are heading. You were just left behind.

 

[edwest211]

Enjoying yourself? Of course you are. I heard a lot of those songs when they came out. There was no ‘nod’ ‘nod’ wink’ ‘wink’ for me. Of course, you think I should’ve known all the ‘code words.’

I remember people burning Beatles albums when John Lennon made a reference to their popularity and Jesus Christ. I watched as they went off the rails and then broke up.

 

[Aloysium]

How do you know that? What is your better explanation for the data used to support it?

As an introduction, here goes:

Perhaps we can begin with what is most clearly true. God is Existence itself and brings us into being here and now. We do not create ourselves but are given life, with everything that we have, including our free will and capacity to know. Existence is trinue in nature, involving relationships. God is perfect relationality, Love, One as the Trinity.

Let’s go from what we know of God to what we know about ourselves. We are made up of cells, and they come together as one thing - the person. All that you and I are experiencing within this relational dialogue through time and space, is brain, the colours, shapes, words, the bodily sensations, emotions, memories, and such are one in its neurological events. These can be broken down into chemical reactions and patterns of neuronal excitation that are organized in accordance with those psychological structures. At the same time that there exist all these disparate components, you and I are one person, each of us. The person is a relational entity, in keeping with everything in the universe. In terms of our thinking, we are a knower, knowing the known. We perceive the perception, feel about situations, and are lovers, loving the beloved. What we are is an expression, a manifestation of humanity, individual and meant to be united in love, among ourselves, within our world and in communion with God. Given that we chose to make ourselves gods, this has been made possible through the incarnation, death and resurrection of our Lord, the Second Person of the Trinity.

From the smallest atom to we ourselves, all creation exists as individual members within a greater whole. An atom is a whole, having different properties that define what it is through its relationships, its interactions with other atoms. The Carbon atom has a tetrahedral strusture that allows for the very, very elaborate configurations that organic molecules take. While it allows for life to happen, the atomic in itself does not possess the capacity to bring about a living being. That’s why science resorts to speaking about randomness in this regard. Most biologists, I understand, believe, or at least speak in terms of a natural force, responsible for life. But we have atoms as whole systems, coming together as cells, which in themselves are a unity of matter and the beginnings of mind. These exist as themselves, and in more complex creatures such as plants and animals, they unite in the formation of a creature having a new set of relationships, within itself and with the environment in which it participates. All individual organisms are expressions of a kind of being, defined by these relational qualities, which in turn are components in a greater system, ultimately that to be known in the Beatific Vision, where God and all creation, from beginning to end, are One in His eternal Now.

 

[Aloysium]

In that context described above, we can understand how God brings into existence different kinds of things, human beings, apes, frogs, redwood trees, grasses, algae, molds, bacteria, and atoms. The kind of thing something is, is expressed in the form of an individual entity, you and I, for example as members of and expressions of humanity, my cat as an individual manifestation of catness. Living organisms are whole in themselves, their atomic, molecular, cellular, and psychological, structure, subsumed in a new existential/relational/spiritual unity of being.

Beginning with atoms, which were brought into existence as Hydrogen, then combined in the formation of the elements of the periodic table to form molecules, God then utilized these components to create life. No randomness, nor any as yet to be described, natural force was at work here, rather an act of Divine will, bringing into existence the first of the various kinds of living being we find today and in the fossil record.

Evolution would have it that the first creature whose offspring would possess the capacity to form a placenta, emerged from an egg. I don’t see the necessity for this, when it is much more complicated than bringing forth adult creatures, who go on to mate, reproducing their own kind. Microevolution is built into the first of each different kind of living thing, not only to enable the environment in which organisms participate, giving and receiving, to function harmoniously, but also to express the Beauty and Creativity that is God. In this fallen world, at work are random mutations and natural selection in the form of the environment becoming inhospitable, all manifestations of death, which today’s science claims is the cause of the diversity and wonder we find in nature.

Our reason is informed that God in Jesus Christ changed water into wine, quelled the stormy seas, walked on water, healed the sick, resurrected from the dead, appeared in a closed room, and will resurrect, not evolve, us in the final judgement. It makes most sense in the face of reality that creation occurred in six steps, beginning with light and terminating in Adam, we ourselves, who in a sense, contain all creation within us, and who journey in and through Jesus Christ into communion with God.

You asked. Good luck with these walls of words. I could say more.

 

[Bradskii]

I could say more.

Of that we have no doubt.

 

[Pattylt]

(I didnt read it… could it be written without using any deepity sayings?}

 

[Aloysium]

(I didnt read it… could it be written without using any deepity sayings?}

Genesis is pretty clear on the matter, but confusing to many.

Let me try again:

God is Love, Existence itself, giving us life, here and now.

Each of us is a person, one being made up of trillions of cells. This experience we are having is comprised of a very complex set of neurological events, our brain in action. What is taking place is one thing that can be described in terms of chemical reactions and psychological events such as vision, feelings and thoughts. This all comes together as one person, you and me, relating to one another as part of a larger relationship we have with the world around us and God. Just as you and I are one thing in ourselves, relating to what we encounter that is other to us, from the smallest atom, all creation exists as individual entities within a greater whole.

What we understand through the fields of physics and chemistry allows for life to happen. The relationships that exist between atoms, their electromagnetic properties alone cannot explain the capacity to bring about a living being. The current scientific explanation of life, does not posit a natural cause, such as some life force, and is unable to delve into the supernatural, so all that is left is randomness.

When we speak of a living creature, we know it to exist as itself. A perfect example is ourselves and that which we love, each being, one thing relating to the environment in which we participates. Each of us is an expression of a kind of being, a human being, determined by relational qualities, which include the capacity to know and act freely. God brings into existence different kinds of living things - apes, frogs, redwood trees, grasses, algae, molds, bacteria, and atoms. Looking back in time, we see that there was a first of each of these. God created matter and then utilized it to create life.

According to the evolutionary perspective, the first creature, whose offspring would develop a placenta connected to its womb, emerged from an egg. This cannot be explained by current scientific understandings. Creating new life forms is more easily done by bringing forth adult creatures, who go on to mate, reproducing their own kind. The possibility of microevolution is built into organisms. This not only allows for a harmonious relationship between the creature and its environment, but also to manifest beauty and wonder in nature. There do exist random mutations of the genome and natural selection, in the form of the environment becoming inhospitable; these are all manifestations of death, and are not the source of the diversity we find in nature. All this wonder is about creation and our relationship with God.

 

[Bradskii]

Nup. Still too long. Still too ‘deepity’.

A description which may have come from the opaque writings of Deepak Chopra unless I’m mistaken.

 

[Edgar]

Do you have a phobia towards atheism?

Every Christian should have a phobia towards atheism. Atheism is Satan’s best friend. It’s ironic that Satan’s best servants don’t even believe he exists!

What is political correctness

“Political Correctness” is simply another way of saying “Cultural Marxism”, which is demented utopian nonsense invented by the Great False god of Equality, who also invented Communism, and alł of which is part of the antiChrist secular madness that the (so-called) Enlightenment gave birth to. The Great False god of Equality is of course an invention of the devil. (Someone once said “When the devil comes along speaking in the name of equality, who can oppose him?”)

In short, PC represents a system of secular morality based on equality, that takes the place of religious morality based on God’s revelation.

Unsurprisingly, PC’s false morality can be diametrically opposed to divine morality - same-sex marriage, for example (all achieved in the name of “equality”).

Multiculturalism - another product of cultural Marxism - is largely based on the equality of religions (a classical Enlightenment value) and is opposed to Jesus’ command to “makes disciples of all the nations” - which is considered by Cultural Marxists to be religious imperialism/fascism (and which, btw, gives us a clue to what spawned the Church’s insane post-Vat II “Inter-Faith Dialogue” movement - the Church’s Western clergy is crawling with Cultural Marxists and Disciples of PC, in case anyone failed to notice).

 

[Edgar]

Is that you Glark ?

Glark’s views on the history of the world were significantly different to Edgar’s - I think Glark believed in the “Gap theory” and that the “six days” were literal and referred to Creation Part II, or some such thing. Edgar, on the other hand, doesn’t subscribe to those particular views.

I heard Glark was captured and sentenced to an indefinite period of “re-education” in a concentration camp run by evo’ fanatics. Poor Glark.

 

[Edgar]

The jaw bones of a reptile evolved into the inner-ear bones of a mammal - evolution science is hilarious!

 

[Bradskii]

IWantGod:

Do you have a phobia towards atheism?

Every Christian should have a phobia towards atheism. Atheism is Satan’s best friend. It’s ironic that Satan’s best servants don’t even believe he exists!

What is political correctness

“Political Correctness” is simply another way of saying “Cultural Marxism”, which is demented utopian nonsense invented by the Great False god of Equality, who also invented Communism, and alł of which is part of the antiChrist secular madness that the (so-called) Enlightenment gave birth to. The Great False god of Equality is of course an invention of the devil. (Someone once said “When the devil comes along speaking in the name of equality, who can oppose him?”)

In short, PC represents a system of secular morality based on equality, that takes the place of religious morality based on God’s revelation.

Unsurprisingly, PC’s false morality can be diametrically opposed to divine morality - same-sex marriage, for example (all achieved in the name of “equality”).

Multiculturalism - another product of cultural Marxism - is largely based on the equality of religions (a classical Enlightenment value) and is opposed to Jesus’ command to “makes disciples of all the nations” - which is considered by Cultural Marxists to be religious imperialism/fascism (and which, btw, gives us a clue to what spawned the Church’s insane post-Vat II “Inter-Faith Dialogue” movement - the Church’s Western clergy is crawling with Cultural Marxists and Disciples of PC, in case anyone failed to notice).

Wow. You got four references to ‘Cultural Marxism’ in there. Count 'em…four!

It used to be known as Cultural Bolshevism. When the Nazis used it as propaganda. For a party called the National Socialists, they weren’t very sociable. Not big on equality by a long way.

But I appreciate that you are not propagandising. You’re using it as a buzz word for…well, for making a small buzzing noise.

And by the way, the reference to the Devil and equality was a reference to the Devil offering equal salvation to all if people would follow him. That you can twist that to reject equality in, for example, marriage - or even that all religious beliefs are not to be treated with equal respect, is a sleight of hand that is all too obvious.

You need to be more subtle. An informed and reasonable debate is appreciated. Everyone avoids the man shouting on a street corner.

 

[Aloysium]

The jaw bones of a reptile evolved into the inner-ear bones of a mammal - evolution science is hilarious!

If we look at what is truly there in time, we see it is individual creatures. I believe each is a manifestation of a kind of living thing. Science today speaks about the evolution of species, which if broken down, predominantly would be considered to be a collection of similar genomes, changing over time. It is like the frames of a moving picture.

Let’s go with that analogy:

According to the ToE, what you would expect to see are gradual changes, frame by frame, resulting in one that had the three ossicles of the middle ear, where in an earlier frame there were two extra jaw bones and one bone connecting the ear drum to the inner ear. What has been found are fossils of a creature called the Yanoconodon, an early mammal, where the ossicles in the middle ear maintain a slight connection to the jaw. This is considered to be a transitional mammalian middle ear. This cartilage exists and dissolves during development in other mammals. There are other explanations. One would be that this represents a mis-step in that development. As any organism develops, pluripotential cells gradually specialize because of epigenetic factors involving the communication of cells with one another. It should be noted that what is spoken of in the ToE, are transitional species, not transitional organisms. In the absence of creatures between species that would exhibit transitional changes, in this case two bones, connected and having nothing to do with hearing, we can imagine an earlier mammal, giving birth to offspring where the development led to the maintenance of the cartilage, necessary for the eventual placement of the ossicles, this then being passed on to future generations. Clearly, all mammals are not ancestrally related to the Yanoconodon.

In deference to Bradskii, who for his reasons appears to want me to write less, I will leave it at that, and not mention God, abeit that this is a Catholic forum, and the sole reason I post is to demonstrate His presence and glory to be found in nature. OOps, I did it again . . . incorrigible.

 

[Aloysium]

Nup. Still too long. Still too ‘deepity’.

A description which may have come from the opaque writings of Deepak Chopra unless I’m mistaken.

I never notice the “deep” in Deepak - great marketing tactic, unconsciously triggering connotations of profundity. But, you got me all wrong. What I say isn’t profound, but completely superficial - it’s what I see. I’m supposed to share it, so here I am, not making any money off of this, although my opinion in real life does have a lot of monetary value in the realm of applied sciences. Definitely, this isn’t about fame, given that my opinions won’t make any sort of change or draw attention beyond the limits of this forum’s denizens. That what is clear to me, and word salad to others, seems to be an intrinsic part of human nature in this fallen world, found especially the modern version of the Tower of Babel, which is the Internet. There is no similarity in fact between what I write and the pronouncements of Deepak Chopra, other than perhaps that they equally may sound too authoritative. Any authority behind my words would belong to Catholic teachings, what we have learned empirically, and reason. It is better to argue the points, and ask for clarification. Why not pick a statement, and if it sounds obscure, ask what it means. I suppose the fear is of another too lengthy response, like this one.

 

[buffalo]

Jerry Coyne supports @edwest211

“Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.”
(Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,”