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.
I don’t believe in evolution.

Species is a term that should have represented the reality that is the existence of different kinds of organisms or perhaps their subtypes.

There are no new kinds of creatures that have been created since mankind appeared on the scene.

What we find are the expected differences in the appearance/behaviour which varies among the members of particular kinds of thing, and which we mistakenly (because it leads to a confusion of how life is organized) lump together into species.
 
Aloysium said:
There are no new kinds of creatures that have been created since mankind appeared on the scene.
Click to expand...
How do we know that? What is your definition of “kind”? Without a definition of “kind” how are we to know if there are any new ones appearing?

From the point of view of biology, there is only one kind: the “Life on Earth” kind.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Eve was created after Adam
Click to expand...
That would be a literalist understanding.

Mankind is also described as having been created male and female at the beginning. The beginning is both ontological and temporal. There exists one humanity and it exists as a self-other which is united in love, a giving of oneself to what is completely other, in this case another human being. We relate not only to God, our Creator, and to the world around us, but to one another. We are whole and fulfilled when we love our neighbour; in doing so are united with God’s will, with God Himself. As mankind becomes itself at its foundation in eternity and in time, what is on the outside of Adam, that being symbolized by, if not historically actualized by the taking of his rib and it’s unity of body-and-soul, being fashioned, into a woman. The person of Eve was created as is each and everyone, rather than the creation of a new kind of being, from that event, emerged the reality of a male-and-female humanity from the first human being, that of which we are a manifestation, and in whom we are all fallen as one humanity, destined for communion within the Triune Godhead, in and through Jesus Christ.

Hopefully the time you have spent in this and other Christian forums has not been a total waste, and you can understand what I am saying, couched as it is in our terms
 
Aloysium said:
“establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward, except when dealing with fundamental” evolutionists
Click to expand...
I think we might need a definition of that term. But at least you spotted the original which I slipped in. I knew Bufallo wouldn’t as he never appears to read anything that contradicts Bufalloism.
 
Aloysium said:
Hopefully the time you have spent in this and other Christian forums has not been a total waste, and you can understand what I am saying, couched as it is in our terms
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I usually cannot understand. You often do not deal directly with science, which I do understand, but more with Christian philosophy, of which I have very little knowledge. Mostly I know of Christian philosophy through looking at where it clashes with Nagarjuna, which gives my a very piecemeal view, rather than a more considered overview.

I do not see the justification for evolution in philosophy, whether Buddhist or Christian, but in evidence, observation and experiment Evolution lies primarily within science, not within philosophy.

Sorry.

rossum
 
FredBloggs said:
Are you saying that the older a document is, the less reliable as a source of information…?

Do I need to point out the obvious here?
Click to expand...
The currency of an article that reports on the state of changing interpretations in an historical science is in itself obvious.

What perhaps is not so obvious to you in this dated article is the next sentence artfully deleted from the poster’s quote which qualifies much of its content as uncertain.

“How this happened, when, and in what order the different groups split, is still uncertain.”

If the “how’, “when”, and “order” questions are uncertain then a logical mind would ask: “How do you know the ‘what’ question is answered certainly?”

Unbridled from the authors’ own cautionary constraint (and going beyond what the article does claim) our intrepid poster elevates the merely provisional to be scientific facts:
Bradskii said:
This IS evolution. Everything evolving from early micrscopic life.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Bradskii said:
We are directly descended from them [bugs].
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
LeafByNiggle said:
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.
Click to expand...
Many of my links are to the papers directly, as you should have noticed by now.
 
FredBloggs said:
Are you saying that the older a document is, the less reliable as a source of information…?

Do I need to point out the obvious here?
Click to expand...
It seems quite a few discount the Bible because it is old and no longer applicable.
 
I’m not sure I’d give much credibility to the popular scientific press.

Cracking open the September 2018 special issue of Scientific American, The Science of Being Human, the first thing one reads is:
Most people on this planet blithely assume, largely without any valid scientific rationale, that humans are special creatures, distinct from other animals. Curiously, the scientists best qualified to evaluate this claim have often appeared reticent to acknowledge the uniqueness of Homo sapiens, perhaps for fear of reinforcing the idea of human exceptionalism put forward in religious doctrines.
Click to expand...
Other than supporting the claims of various posters here that evolution is a doctrine meant to promote atheism and that there most certainly is pressure within the scientific community to conform, it reveals a most serious sad state of intellectual affairs in today’s society. On the positive side the evidence may ultimately set people straight to see what has been known to be true for millennia.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
40.png
FredBloggs:
Are you saying that the older a document is, the less reliable as a source of information…?

Do I need to point out the obvious here?
Click to expand...
The currency of an article that reports on the state of changing interpretations in an historical science is in itself obvious.
Click to expand...
This does not justify your attack on a 2009 article. The currency of such an article is only as factor if a later article based on new information comes to a different conclusion in a way that invalidates the older interpretation. The fact that an article was written in 2009 is not, in an of itself, reason to dismiss it.
What perhaps is not so obvious to you in this dated article is the next sentence artfully deleted from the poster’s quote which qualifies much of its content as uncertain.

“How this happened, when, and in what order the different groups split, is still uncertain.”

If the “how’, “when”, and “order” questions are uncertain then a logical mind would ask: “How do you know the ‘what’ question is answered certainly?”
Click to expand...
That is normally explained in the article. There is no reason to discount a result of what happened just because there is uncertainty in “when” and “how.” I see this attack on evolution a lot, and it never makes any sense.
 
rossum said:
How do we know that? What is your definition of “kind”?
Click to expand...
It is sharpening now as we have more genetic and epigenetic information coming in. Species are islands is what is being learned.

"Kind " will be defined as genetically unique and isolated by large distances. I already linked a paper showing just that.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
consensus science is exactly what we should be doing.
Click to expand...
It only takes one fact to overturn much consensus science. If one moves outside of consensus will he get funded? Published? No. There lies a huge problem.
Click to expand...
Truth always wins out over established (and incorrect) assumptions. If evolution is false and there is evidence to support that fact, then it will eventually become established science. But in the meantime, there is no reason to give anti-evolution a pass or quick-track to acceptance. It will have to earn acceptance the same way every scientific theory has had to earn it - the hard way. There are too many quack claims in science to overthrow consensus every time one such claim pops up.
 
Bradskii said:
I think we might need a definition of that term. But at least you spotted the original which I slipped in. I knew Bufallo wouldn’t as he never appears to read anything that contradicts Bufalloism.
Click to expand...
I had better stay within the consensus or kiss my funding goodbye. Nice…
 
@Buffalo, in regards to “kinds” are all monkeys one kind? As in, was there just one original monkey that has “micro-evolved” since its appearance.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Truth always wins out over established (and incorrect) assumptions. If evolution is false and there is evidence to support that fact, then it will eventually become established science. But in the meantime, there is no reason to give anti-evolution a pass or quick-track to acceptance. It will have to earn acceptance the same way every scientific theory has had to earn it - the hard way. There are too many quack claims in science to overthrow consensus every time one such claim pops up.
Click to expand...
Intelligently designed life is a much better and consistent explanation.

As in The Mystery of the Megaflood, it only took one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top