E
edwest211
Guest
That’s always been a good question, and I’ve seen no good replies. Depending on the scale of the environmental change, most or all would die off.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
E
edwest211
Guest
That’s correct. Evolution is a religion, a belief system. And it denies God in its most basic form. Science cannot know God so individual scientists are agnostic or disbelieve or are atheist. Sadly, some have not looked at the claims with any rigor. Example: Design. Richard Dawkins wrote that the design we see in living things is an illusion. See? If you’ve ever studied human anatomy you will see a combination of muscles and internal organs that were designed. Evolution is like a car without a driver. Design is directed, it solves problems through God-given human intelligence.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
There was an implication that certain aspects of nature could not have evolved. A link was given to show that it certainly could have. No more and no less. And the proposal was not denied (Bufallo does not have the background to refute specific scientific proposals) so they were accepted. Except that he decided to dig up the goalposts and replace them waaaay over there by claiming that the process wasn’t evolution in any case - but design!Bradskii:
One doesn’t often see the word “could” in a scientific claim. “Could” merely suggests a possibility may exist. Absent evidence to the contrary, anything is possible.
“Undoubtedly could” is an interesting phrase. Although perhaps intended to elevate the “possible” to the realm of the “probable,” it does not. A thing that is “undoubtedly possible” is no more possible than a merely possible thing. No one doubts the possibility of that which has not been proven false.
There’s a parallel, I think, in the atheist and the non-evolutionist.
The atheist says, “Until I observe the Resurrection, preferably in my backyard, I will not believe.”
The non-evolutionist says, “Until I observe life emanate from non-life, preferably in my own laboratory, I will not believe.”
Both make an act of faith.
Laughable.
R
rossum
Guest
And, implicitly, you are telling us that your consider religious belief systems inferior to science. Or are you trying to tell us that evolution is superior to the other sciences?
It fascinates me that religious people so often us the argument “evolution is a religion, not a science” thereby implying that religion is inferior to science. A very strange way for religious believers to argue IMHO.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
How is it that evolution can cherry pick and change certain organisms, but the whole ecosystem that it’s a part of and relies for support doesn’t have to evolve also ?
Example: There’s a cold future in store for an organism, how is it that the ecosystem that it’s connected to and relies for food isn’t affected by the cold also ?
It seem to me that every aspect of the whole ecosystem would have to evolve at the same rate as the organism.And if someone says… it does, then I would say that’s a whole lot of perfectly orchestrated random mutations going on, and not plausible.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
I fully agree. An organism, outside of a lab, lives in a designed, highly orchestrated ecosystem. Find water, find food and find shelter, along with being able to cope with predators. All of which points to design and organization. Nothing random here.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Your example shows why denial of evolution is a religious belief system. It’s main argument is “Look! How can you say that cloud in the sky is a turtle when it is clearly a pumpkin!”
M
Metis1
Guest
Evolution is simply not a religion, nor is it anti-religion. Matter of fact, a poll taken several decades ago found that most Christian theologians do accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.
T
Techno2000
Guest
So, Adam and Eve’s parents were soulless monkey like creatures ?
B
buffalo
Guest
It was more story telling.
B
buffalo
Guest
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This criticism is illogical. The proper way to challenge a statement of the form “X could not happen” is to show that “X could happen.” Criticizing it for using the word “could” is illogical. Here is an example of why it is illogical:Bradskii:
One doesn’t often see the word “could” in a scientific claim. “Could” merely suggests a possibility may exist. Absent evidence to the contrary, anything is possible.
Person A claims “George Washington could not possibly have eaten a bell pepper ever in his life!”
Person B challenges this statement by showing historical evidence that bell peppers were native to Central America, were known to the Europeans by the 16th century, and were described by Thomas Jefferson in his writings about gardening at Monticello. So there seems to be no good reason to suppose that George Washington had never eaten one. Of course it would be nice if Person B found a document written by George Washington describing how delicious a bell pepper was and how he ate them quite often. But it is unlikely that Person B will be able to find such evidence.
So tell me, who wins that argument? Person A or Person B? I say person B because of the lack of proof of Person A’s claim and because of the circumstantial evidence that makes Person A’s claim unlikely.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Could the universe be designed?
T
Techno2000
Guest
Could DNA code write itself ?LeafByNiggle:
Could the universe be designed?
B
buffalo
Guest
No, codes need a sender, receiver and encryption.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I see what you are doing. Very clever. You are hoping that I will say “no” in order to support evolution. And then you will have me making the very same argument that I was just criticizing. However…LeafByNiggle:
Could the universe be designed?
It is not necessary for me to answer “no” to your question to support evolution. The science of evolution does not require that answer. I can answer “yes” to your question without making the smallest dent in the theory of evolution. And so of course my answer is “yes.”
Going beyond science and turning to my own personal belief, informed by my Catholic faith, I can say that not only could the universe be designed, but that it was in fact designed. However that is my religion, and not a consequence of scientific investigation.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Suggest you reflect on the vast difference in claiming something “could happen” and “could never happen.”
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Please elaborate on how that difference affects the current debate.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Wow. That was a fairly fast reflection! Better to start a new thread if you wish to continue.
- Status