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

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

If there is little point quoting Buddhist thought, there is much less quoting evolutionist beliefs to prove your point.

The title of this thread is: “Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true.” Quoting the science of the evolution of species is very relevant to the thread.

Theology, both Buddhist and Christian, is less relevant.

rossum

Again, there is no point repeating the belief system of evolution as if it were a proof.

As to your point about religious belief being less relevant, clearly both Christianity and Buddhism have to do with the truth. So, they are completely appropriate to this discussion.

You identify yourself as a Buddhist, but you are not the final say on the matter since there actually is a religion called Buddhism whose precepts are avaiable to all. Like other religions, there exist various factions, with their specific interpretation of teachings that go back to Buddha and Hinduism before him. You present your version and I will present mine.

There are two kinds of Truth according to Buddhist thought. There is an apparent, societally accepted truth, such as evolution, and the ultimate Truth, in which you have disbelief, according to previous statements you have made. The ultimate Truth is Reality itself and can be realized. We can arrive at enlightenment through meditation and contemplation. Theorizing or speculating on what are transient events leads us nowhere; it would be like pursuing dreams in comparison to being awake. The Buddha’s teachings are considered to be the Ultimate Truth in regards to our being in the world, and do not change regardless of what happens in the world. Buddhism does not evolve. While we may have a personal understanding of Buddha’s teaching reflecting the tenets our society, Buddhism itself remains firmly grounded in a Truth discovered and shared by Buddha and his followers. This is the case regardless of how secular, relativistic, modern man may distort and mystify its teachings.

So, the statement, “Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true.” should begin a discussion as to whether evolution is in fact reality; does it conform to the teachings that speak the Truth of existence?

 

[Aloysium]

whether evolution is in fact reality; does it conform to the teachings that speak the Truth of existence

Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

Source: CMI - What we believe

These two statements are equivalent, the scriptural record requiring interpretation of course and the Church providing a Magisterium to help inform us, in Catholic terms, all through the grace of the Holy Spirit.

 

[sevenswords]

Ok let me see the published paper that proves what you say I know you must have it as I know you would not go on to goggle and grab the first thing you could find to debunk.I could show you a thousand fraudulent debunks, so may I see the evidence you demand for your self.
http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm
This is not an isolated case, above is a peer reviewed paper showing many samples of C14 dating from different times and places/labs.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok let me see the published paper that proves what you say I know you must have it as I know you would not go on to goggle and grab the first thing you could find to debunk.I could show you a thousand fraudulent debunks, so may I see the evidence you demand for your self.
C-14 Dating
This is not an isolated case, above is a peer reviewed paper showing many samples of C14 dating from different times and places/labs.

Fistly, what you linked to is not a paper. It’s just an article on the web.

Secondly (and therefore) it is not peer reviewed.

Thirdly, one of the co-writers in Miller who you have already seen lies when kt comes to matters of fossil dating.

Fourth, the person who found the bones, a devout Chrisitian, has no doubt whatsoever that the bones are millions of years old. And she has this to say about the people who wrote the article to which you linked:

'Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data".’

Read more: Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

You need to look more closely at the information you are being given. If you are being lied to and you pass on those lies then at best you give the impression of being too lazy to check out the facts yourself.

I asked for your comments on the lies you were given previously and you have simply ignored the request. If this is all you are going to do from now on in, then there is not much benefit in continuing.

 

[buffalo]

This guy lost his job after this paper

Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus​

Soft fibrillar bone tissues were obtained from a supraorbital horn of Triceratops horridus collected at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, USA. Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone matrix. This matrix possessed visible microstructures consistent with lamellar bone osteocytes. Some sheets of soft tissue had multiple layers of intact tissues with osteocyte-like structures featuring filipodial-like interconnections and secondary branching. Both oblate and stellate types of osteocyte-like cells were present in sheets of soft tissues and exhibited organelle-like microstructures. SEM analysis yielded osteocyte-like cells featuring filipodial extensions of 18–20 μm in length. Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence of any permineralization or crystallization artifact and therefore were interpreted to be soft. This is the first report of sheets of soft tissues from Triceratops horn bearing layers of osteocytes, and extends the range and type of dinosaur specimens known to contain non-fossilized material in bone matrix.

Loading…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[edwest211]

Thanks buffalo.

 

[rossum]

This guy lost his job after this paper

He does not have a Triceratops horn. He has a buffalo () horn that has been carbon dated to about 33,500 years old. That is very reasonable for a buffalo horn, much less so for a Triceratops.

It incidentally destroys the 6,000 year YEC timescale as well, whatever species it is.

rossum

 

[sevenswords]

Ok I can only assume you didn’t read the paper as this has nothing to do with Schweitzer.
. It also gives rebuttals!
schweitzer and all her colleges would have bet their life savings and careers that you were wrong if you had said to them that dino bones would contain soft tissue and blood never mind C14 and now you want to believe this rubbish spewing from them that this is exactly what they would expect to find in dino bones? are you seriously that blind?
10 or more test subjects have been tested in well known labs and all have given similar results

Here is the facts so far . I asked you to show me what proof you have to make you believe in evolution that would also convince me as I am open to any kind of evidence, so far
No proof of non living matter coming to life
No explanation as to why the fossil record shows no evidence but does show evidence that things have not changed in 400 million years according to their time line
No rebuttal as to why all biological evidence shows design beyond doubt and could not have changed from one species to another
No rebuttal as to why evolutionists had to believe in long periods of time before they started trying to fit square evidence into round holes and claiming evidence for it.Darwin had no tests or evidence other than a few birds that obviously are still birds.
Creationists science calls these clear bias out and opens debate as evolution has firmly closed the door on debate by labelling anyone who does not accept their fallacy as heretics

Thousands of scientists have left the evolution side and went over to the creation side as the evidence forced them to.
Have you heard the expression pot calling the kettle black?
Evolutionists sometimes will portray their own personalities onto others and accuse others of their very own failings, just saying that all you accuse me of is what you are doing not me, as I answer to the best of my ability and never claimed to have full knowledge about anything, but you do and yet the rebuttals I want still aren’t coming.

 

[Bradskii]

Thanks for the conversation, Seven. I know when I have met my match…

 

[IWantGod]

Thousands of scientists have left the evolution side and went over to the creation side

They heard the book deals were more lucrative.

 

[o_mlly]

How is planning ahead for the next day not an abstraction? The next day has to be an abstract concept until it actually arrives.

I think you mean simply “planning ahead”. Or do you think the interval makes a difference? If so, how far in advance determines rational planning vs. intelligent planning?

Hopefully, our gratuitous kibitzer is taking a break.

I believe we disagree as to the truth that human beings can be fully explained as a specie of animal.

Animals can plan but not like humans can. The difference is not in degree but in the kind of planning possible for humans and impossible for animals.

Like humans, animals adapt behavior from their particular experiences. A sensitive being when urged on by its appetite transports its body from one place to another if its experiences indicate the other place more likely to satisfy that appetite. The chimps do as much.

Mental mechanisms we share with animals are imagination and memory. In the animal, the reproduction of the images from memory corresponds exactly to the reality perceived before by the senses. So, even In the absence of the exact objects, the imagination drawing on memory reproduces them and moves the animal to act.

Unlike the animal, man can also abstract, that is, unite or separate the images in his imagination from the particulars and combine them in diverse ways. By associating these novel combinations, man develops alternative options to adapting his behaviors in order to satisfy his desires in creative ways not possible for animals.

If a chimp puts a seed of his favored fruit in the ground and cultivates it into a plant then we would have evidence of abstraction. If a chimp invested time and energy to fabricate a tool whose sole purpose was the manufacture of another useful tool then we would have evidence of abstraction. But if the chimp adapts his behavior in merely immediate and opportunistic ways, evidence of abstraction is lacking.

 

[Bradskii]

If a chimp puts a seed of his favored fruit in the ground and cultivates it into a plant…

A chimp wouldn’t. It has not evolved to the point where it could think in that fashion.

But we are not chimps. When our line of descent split from the line that produced chimps then we went on our merry way. And at that point, when that split happened, we had not evolved to the point where we could plant seeds either.

But the DIRECT line from that split to us gradually evolved to the point where we undoubtedly and obviously could. So we have a direct line that at one point had no concept of art or farming or whatever determinant you want to use to describe what we are now and we reached a point where we DO have such concepts.

Your problem is that you need some Kapow! moment, some Thursday Afternoon at 2:30pm on a specific date to explain this change. When those who understand evolution know that it was a gradual development.

Otherwise, feel free to explain the exact mechanism whereby we can now paint chapel ceilings and grow courgettes and how and when it all happened.

 

[Techno2000]

But the DIRECT line from that split to us gradually evolved to the point where we undoubtedly and obviously could.

How long do you suppose that took ?

 

[Techno2000]

Hubble


Jellyfish

Hubble

Jellyfish

Hubble

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

But the DIRECT line from that split to us gradually evolved to the point where we undoubtedly and obviously could.

How long do you suppose that took ?

You might have noticed a general tendency for people not to respond to you directly any more. It’s because that most are tired of answering questions that have already been answered. Very many times. But you still keep on asking them.

Hey, why not post that image of the evolution of whales again. I haven’t seen that in days.

 

[o_mlly]

But the DIRECT line from that split to us gradually evolved to the point where we undoubtedly and obviously could.

Is that what they teach you at Atheist Sunday School? Because it reads more like an act of faith than a science claim.

Oh well, I guess better to believe in something than nothing unless that something is wrong. As that is your case, better to go back to just believing in nothing.

 

[Aloysium]

Unlike the animal, man can also abstract, that is, unite or separate the images in his imagination from the particulars and combine them in diverse ways. By associating these novel combinations, man develops alternative options to adapting his behaviors in order to satisfy his desires in creative ways not possible for animals.

The thing is that, beyond the abstraction, we know.

And, evolution is “known” as an abstraction composed of a set of assumptions, based on what we do know. I don’t believe there to be a structure to reality that evolution represents. It is an illusion, a mosaic put together of broken pieces that represent our incomplete knowledge of the real picture, which can be best described as creation.

Evolution is not known as we might know, for example definitely, that we exist, or that something called a cat does also. A one year old baby is likely to identify a picture or even a caricature of a cat, and may be able to say the word “cat”. I would contend that the abstraction follows the knowledge as we construct symbols that represent things we know. The temptation is to fill what we don’t know with what we do, rather than seeking to illuminate that darkness. That is how we get evolutionary theory, creating an illusion to explain what is beyond our reach.

When we contemplate evolutionary theory, we bring to mind a series of associated ideas. We can reflect on our experiences and the various concepts we have absorbed over the course of our lives. The problem arises when the facts, the stuff we really know appears processed in the form of the theory. Linking the truth and the theory, inseparably in our imagination, we can come to believe evolution is true; while the facts are, the mythos is not. However, with a little bit of effort, we can deconstruct our understanding and with the slightest shifting of the basic associations, growing in knowledge and understanding through the grace of the Holy Spirit, an alternate picture appears - that of creation.

We are able to abstract, having a nervous system capable of expressing our spiritual soul. This human spirit was created in time. Each of us as an expression of one humanity has the ability to engage in rational thought, dependent on the structure and processes of our brain which allow it to manifest our human nature behaviourally in time and space.

All this is possible because we can know, and knowing any aspect of our existence in the world, drives us to know more and more. Knowledge then, would not be merely a linking of facts; it is the awareness of, the connection, through our perceptions, our thoughts and our feelings, to some aspect of the “structure” of reality. Ultimately, our desire to know is fulfilled in the knowledge of the Knowledge whereby we are known and are therefore able to know - the Beatific Vision.

 

[o_mlly]

That is how we get evolutionary theory, creating an illusion to explain what is beyond our reach.

As an historigraphical science, evolution theory is contrived, not derived, as are the experimental sciences. There is a reason the study is still identified as the “theory of evolution” and not the “law of evolution”.

Since evolutionists make less an act of intellect and more an act of will, dissuading them from their beliefs is not likely.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Unlike the animal, man can also abstract, that is, unite or separate the images in his imagination from the particulars and combine them in diverse ways. By associating these novel combinations, man develops alternative options to adapting his behaviors in order to satisfy his desires in creative ways not possible for animals.

That’s because man evolved this sense of abstraction and now possesses an ability not possessed by any other animals. I don’t see how this observation of yours challenges evolution.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

But the DIRECT line from that split to us gradually evolved to the point where we undoubtedly and obviously could.

Is that what they teach you at Atheist Sunday School? Because it reads more like an act of faith than a science claim.

Oh well, I guess better to believe in something than nothing unless that something is wrong. As that is your case, better to go back to just believing in nothing.

Why is faith required? You have agreed that evolution is just hunky dory. So we have some points we can make.

1. Man, as we are right at this moment, has a lineage that stretches back to a point where the line split from the line now comprising our cousins the apes and monkeys. All good so far…
2. When that split happened, there was nothing that our DIRECT ancestors had that allowed them to exhibit, and ability to produce, for example, art. As the split had just happened, we were nothing but apes on another evolutionary track. Or shall we say that as no examples exist we can assume this. All good?
3. That direct line has resulted in where we are at this moment. And we do have the ability to make tools that make tools and paint bowls of fruit etc. So somewhere along that line stretching all the way from way back then, when we weren’t human, to here when we are, we transitioned from those with no art to those with art (just using that as an example). All good again.

Your problem is to now create a 2001 type obelisk event so our chimp-like humans can instantly develop artistic abilities and start forging tools. And I guess that your ‘obelisk’ is going to be God. Who zaps whatever was running around at some point on that evolutionary track and turned them into what you want to define as human.

Steps 01 to 03 are entirely logical and fit lock step with everything we know about how evolution works. If you want to deny that process then you are going to need a lot of…what was it? Yes, faith. Because there is zero evidence for whatever you seem to be proposing. And let’s face it, if there was definite evidence then you wouldn’t need faith.