B
buffalo
Guest
Like multiverses? lol
Yes, God āpoppedā things into existence. The big bang was a big pop.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
Yes, God āpoppedā things into existence. The big bang was a big pop.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Stop exhibiting your ignorance. Itās embarrasing:Bradskii:
Science by consensus? WOW!
"Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the ānormalā debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.
On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the āinsideā to the āoutsideā of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward, except when dealing with fundamental Christians."
But hey, thatās from Wiki so it may be completely wrong. But it saved me typing the same thing out myself.
M
mVitus
Guest
Iāll play along. Did the archetypes pop out of nowhere?
The question isnāt whether God made, but how He made.
B
buffalo
Guest
WIKI? Really. Consensus scienceā¦ Even one finding cannot undo it. Oh wait, that is what we are seeing right now.
B
buffalo
Guest
Popped out of nowhere? God created them out of nothing. He can do so, if He wishes.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Reduced? Please read the posts. I merely questioned Wikiās authority; it was Thomas Shafee, the expert biologist, who complained. But then I suppose being āreducedā is preferable to being āinflatedā which is what I think evol-ogians are who attempt to take the science beyond its data.
At one time, so was a flat earth the most prominent view.
Which is why the ātree of lifeā remains at a hypothetical stage. Who would have guessed that pigsā parents are really whales great grandparents and not the whalesā second cousins (or is it first-cousin once removed?). In either event, stay tuned for updates on the real tree of life.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evotrees_primer_06
That life may have started as a single cell organism does not imply that all life descended from that single cell. That data is just not there.
Admit that what you believe about the first human beings is as much an act of will as the theist who believes that God acted in a special way to create the first human being.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Do you honestly not know the meaning of consensus?Bradskii:
WIKI? Really. Consensus scienceā¦ Even one finding cannot undo it. Oh wait, that is what we are seeing right now.
āConsensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.ā
As someone said above. Oh, it was me. Well, quoting in any case. So, no. One finding will not necessarily overturn a consensus. Think of the weight of evidence.
What you have is soap and bubbles so only fundamentalist Christians with limited knowledge accept it. Then there is the galactic amount of evidence for this other theory. Which everyone else believes. So yeah, the consensus is that bacterial life was the original life form and evolution was the process that produced us.
And please keep up the good work. Youāre the Ken Ham of the threads on evolution. Keeping people amused by the busload.
B
buffalo
Guest
Great! So from now on be sure to post āscientists thinkā or :scientific consensus" ā¦
It is not fact, but general agreement without empirical proof.
B
Bradskii
Guest
I was wondering when the rejection of evolution itself was going to arise. Contradicting your earlier comments about having āno problem with evolution, it just doesnāt involve manā (Iām paraphrasing here - I literally canāt be bothered digging up your original quote).
This IS evolution. Everything evolving from early micrscopic life. This from New Science:
"3.8 billion years ago is is our current ābest guessā for the beginning of life on Earth. It is distinctly possible that this date will change as more evidence comes to light. The first life may have developed in undersea alkaline vents, and was probably based on RNA rather than DNA.
At some point far back in time, a common ancestor gave rise to two main groups of life: bacteria and archaea."Timeline: The evolution of life | New Scientist
Note your chums the bacteria and archaea? (You really need to read the whole article by the way). We are directly descended from them. That IS evolution. But maybe this has come as a shock to you. Maybe, gee, you thought it was finchās beaks and lungfish and worms. Well no.
But as I said, you have never given any indication of any real knowledge of evolution and now you show you have no idea of its scope. How on earth can one discuss evolutionary concepts with someone who rejects the very premis itself.
Oh, in case you didnāt twig, that was the end of the conversation.
B
Bradskii
Guest
You are exhibiting ignorance again.Bradskii:
Great! So from now on be sure to post āscientists thinkā or :scientific consensus" ā¦
It is not fact, but general agreement without empirical proof.
Facts, which can be empirically proved, determine theories, which can never be proved but which then can have a consensus if there is general agreement.
Do you never learn anything at all? Maybe print that last bit out and stick it somewhere.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Oh great! From bedtime tales for little evolutionists from Dawkins to a pop-science rag. These are your source documents?
You are quite amusing: an article from 2009? Did you see the latest article at New Scientist? Artificial stupidity could help save humanity from an AI takeover Apparently, you have not only read it but committed it to memory.
M
mVitus
Guest
So what happened to the creatures before them? Where did they go? We donāt have dinosaurs.
O
o_mlly
Guest
An apparent MO of quasi-trollers in this forum is to read a (comic?) book or surf the web and take their cursory understanding in an attempt to debunk a belief in our 2,000 year old Catholic intellectual tradition.
This quasi-troller, who is at risk of drowning in a bird bath, wades into these deep waters equipped with their recently acquired, half-inflated Swimmies, thrashes about for a bit, and, typically, end their foray by departing while splashing their interlocutors calling them āignorant.ā
āHe who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun himā (Anonymous).
F
FredBloggs
Guest
Are you saying that the older a document is, the less reliable as a source of informationā¦?
Do I need to point out the obvious here?
A
Aloysium
Guest
While we might not see eye to eye about some of the peripherals, as to creation ex nihilo, historical Adam and the fall of mankind, necessitating the incarnation and sacrifice of the innocent Lamb, we are in full agreement. Oh yes, we both see evolution as not only bad science, but rather not science at all; it is a modern mythos explaining our origins in terms of the prevailing materialistic zeitgeist.
Following that line of thought, we can contemplate our individual beginnings. The embryonic stage of the person, in addition to representing our physical structure at a point in time, can be thought of as a process, the physiology of the dividing cells being the means by which we physically develop and grow. More than just stuff organized in an infinitely complex arrangement, cellular chemistry is information in action. In the processes that involve the totality of the cell containing the genome, within the Fallopian tube and later embedded in the uterine wall, we see the incorporation of external matter into body-within-a-placental-sac. That order that we observe, in itself may be thought of as the human spirit, utilizing and unifying the inherent order of atoms into its bodily form, which is then able to express to varying degrees the fullness of its nature.
Evolution explains the information contained within these processes as having been randomly accrued at a genetic level, selected by environmental pressures operating at the phenotypic.
A focus on creation in contrast, views the emergence of life as happening as an act of will by God. He created the heavens and the earth, which He then caused to bring forth different kinds of living beings. A central aspect in the nature of living things is that they reproduce - individual creatures participating in the multiplication of their kind, in all itās diversity, within the whole that is their environment. It is the soul that is the new kind of being that is created and brings together more primitive, material forms of being into itself.
Matter cannot organize itself to become life; the reality is quite the converse. Most atheistic evolutionary scientist who tend towards a sort of naturalism would agree. We who work on our relationship with God know there to be something greater at work.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
The obvious is that when we base our understanding on accumulated information, newer is better. Hopefully we are growing in wisdom, knowledge and understanding as we progress along the Way that is Jesus Christ. So, here too newer may be thought of as better.o_mlly:
Are you saying that the older a document is, the less reliable as a source of informationā¦?
Do I need to point out the obvious here?
On the other hand, that growth and development is based on an eternal, unchanging foundation. And, Scripture as a dialogue between God and mankind is one aspect of that relationship between us individually and collectively. While it remains steady, it is the individual within society and our changing understandings that require the graces of the Holy Spirit to interpret its meaning.
From my perspective, science with all the benefits it has provided, has at the same time made us stupid. We no longer see the truth that was obvious to millennia of our ancestors, putting our faith as we do in science, thinking it to be a reliable source of knowledge about who and why we are.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
They died.
Some people believe in evolution because there were dinosaurs, that somehow their existence makes creation impossible and evolution a fact.
The reality is that we have a name for those creatures whose petrified remnants fuel our imaginations. This would signify that those kinds of living being existed and were more than a collection of molecules. Each individual expression of its kind is a whole unified system in itself, incorporating not only the physical but the psychological/behavioural/instinctive into its being.
The creation of dinosaur kinds of being was brought about utilizing the previous creation of material kinds of being. Subatomic particle/events are brought together into the new wholes of atoms and molecules, which in turn are used in the new unity that is an individual organic life form. In their diversity, together they constitute the enveloping system that is the environment. I canāt say that Gaia exists independent of our imagining it to be an everchanging whole constituting all life, resting on the earth in its relation to the sun, but it surely behaves that way.
The way I see it, creation ceased with that of Adam. I have my preferred version of the timeframe involved, but there are others. Thereās nothing, in other words, that would suggest that evolution is anywhere close to adequately describing our appearance here, compared to creation.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
We should not pretend we are doing original science here in this forum. We are weighing authorities. In the context of a debate among those who have no access to original data, consensus science is exactly what we should be doing.Bradskii:
WIKI? Really. Consensus scienceā¦
A
Aloysium
Guest
āestablishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward, except when dealing with fundamentalā evolutionists
R
rossum
Guest
You do realise that new species have appeared since Adam? You are effectively saying that the appearance of new species is not part of ācreationā.
P.S. Eve was created after Adam.
rossum
- Status