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

[Aloysium]

Where in the fundamental interactions of nature do you see those that make for this level of complexity and the emergence of holistic systems? At that point you are straying beyond science into philosophy and belief including deism, atheism, pantheism, naturalism, and spiritualism, but not Christianity.

 

[IWantGod]

Where in the fundamental interactions of nature do you see those that make for this level of complexity and the emergence of holistic systems.

I was addressing your unsupported claim that it cannot happen for which you have no argument.

 

[IWantGod]

but not Christianity.

What Catholic Dogma said that it cannot happen?

 

[IWantGod]

Exactly…here’s a question I can never get an straight answer for:

If evolution is there to make a creature fit for a new environment, how is the creature going to become fit if it takes evolution millions of years to do anything ?

You can’t be serious.

The fossil record would support your position if Evolution was not true. Like i said before, all the creatures that are alive to day should have existed 4 billion years ago. It’s simple logic. And since that is not the case, your beliefs about the matter are built on sand, being neither supported by the Church or Science…

 

[Aloysium]

Let’s start with there having been one first man from whom we all derived, before whom there is only God as Father, created immortal in Eden, damaging our relationship with the Ground of our being which is Love Divine, by committing the original sin which brought sin and death into the world. Show me the love, which is fundamental to existence, in your vision of our creation.

 

[IWantGod]

Let’s start with there having been one first man from whom we all derived,

What has that got to do with the question of whether or not physical reality has been given the power to produce organic structures or organisms?

Stop twisting the discussion to suit you.

 

[rossum]

If evolution is there to make a creature fit for a new environment, how is the creature going to become fit if it takes evolution millions of years to do anything ?

It doesn’t always take millions of years. Evolution took 40 years to evolve the ability to digest a by-product of nylon manufacture. See Nylon eating bacteria.

Your timescale is out by five orders of magnitude.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

 

[rossum]

Where in the fundamental interactions of nature do you see those that make for this level of complexity and the emergence of holistic systems?

How are you measuring complexity? A pebble has a huge number of atoms, each with three dimensions of position, three dimensions of velocity and three dimensions of angular momentum. That is a very very complex object.

At that point you are straying beyond science into philosophy and belief including deism, atheism, pantheism, naturalism, and spiritualism, but not Christianity.

How complex is an omniscient entity which knows all the complex information contained in every pebble on every planet in the entire universe?

It is an obvious philosophical error to attempt to explain complexity by assuming the existence of some even more complex entity.

On a more prosaic level, chemistry can explain a great deal of the complexity we see in the world. Biological complexity is chemistry and evolution. Despite what YECs and ID proponents tell you, there is nothing in biology that requires non-human intelligent intervention. I will allow that Monsanto and others have intelligently designed some elements of some organisms.

Of course, intelligent design by Monsanto requires the prior existence of Monsanto. That is a major fault of ID; it requires the previous existence of the designer, yet provides no explanation for the origin of the designer nor of the complexity inherent in the designer.

rossum

 

[o_mlly]

But [Matter does not have the properties required to collect itself into the physical forms required for life is] not a statement that can be backed by the Catholic faith and it is certainly not a statement that is backed up by any philosophy or science.

Leaving religious beliefs aside, the scientist weighs the observable as more credible than the speculative and the repeatability of that which is observed above the merely reported observation.

I have never observed inanimate things evolve into animate beings. And I believe no one else has either. Therefore, the statement is scientifically quite reasonable.

 

[o_mlly]

It doesn’t always take millions of years. Evolution took 40 years to evolve the ability to digest a by-product of nylon manufacture. See Nylon eating bacteria .

If I never ate Ruffles chips before 1958 then did I not exist before 1958?

Unless the researchers have access to pre-1935 bacteria sitting in lab refrigerators, the claim that the genes actually evolved new proteins via mutation is dubious since we have no pre-1935 bacterial samples to actually do a comparison with, especially in the case of NylC. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/when...ins-actually-evolve-the-ability-to-eat-nylon/

 

[prayerrider]

How does this impact the theory that the dinosaurs built Stonehenge?

 

[IWantGod]

I have never observed inanimate things evolve into animate beings. And I believe no one else has either. Therefore, the statement is scientifically quite reasonable.

No, not really. From a scientific point of view i am not going to simply assume that some intelligent being, from god knows where, manufactured organisms from physical parts. This is not something that in principle can be considered a working hypothesis. I accept methodological naturalism, i accept that we exist within an order of natural causes, and i see no reason to assume that some intelligent being interfered with that natural process on the assumption that physical reality was not enough to produce some physical object in the first place… When it comes to philosophy i think that God created physical reality to naturally bring about physical ends and everything that science has revealed is consistent with that idea; otherwise what is the point. Science is the study of the processes involved in that journey.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

If evolution is there to make a creature fit for a new environment, how is the creature going to become fit if it takes evolution millions of years to do anything ?

It doesn’t always take millions of years. Evolution took 40 years to evolve the ability to digest a by-product of nylon manufacture. See Nylon eating bacteria.

Your timescale is out by five orders of magnitude.

rossum

So, evolution can work fast or slow, it just depends. The animal and it’s ecosystem would have to be made fit at the same time environmental change occurred, not 40 years later.

 

[Aloysium]

That power attributed to matter exists only in the minds of its believers.

But you asked where evolution conflicts with Catholic dogma and so I brought up the existence of Adam in response, hardly a twisting of the discussion to suit me. To clarify, evolution as it is understood requires a population. Humanity’s creation through one man can only be known through divine revelation. The two versions of reality don’t fit as they are understood.

Now if you have an explanation, please inform us.

 

[Aloysium]

We’ve been through all this before. When there’s stuff to do, the carousel loses its thrill. I might have another go at this later.

 

[IWantGod]

Matter does not have the properties required to collect itself into the physical forms required for life.

By what standard do you know this to be true? You can’t just assert things. You don’t know what you are talking about.

If you don’t believe that God gave physical reality the power and nature to produce organisms or organic structures, then that’s just your belief. But it’s not a statement that can be backed by the Catholic faith and it is certainly not a statement that is backed up by any philosophy or science.

Where in the fundamental interactions of nature do you see those that make for this level of complexity and the emergence of holistic systems? At that point you are straying beyond science into philosophy and belief including deism, atheism, pantheism, naturalism, and spiritualism, but not Christianity.

I was addressing your unsupported claim that it cannot happen for which you have no argument.

but not Christianity.

What Catholic Dogma said that it cannot happen?

Let’s start with there having been one first man from whom we all derived, before whom there is only God as Father, created immortal in Eden, damaging our relationship with the Ground of our being which is Love Divine, by committing the original sin which brought sin and death into the world. Show me the love, which is fundamental to existence, in your vision of our creation.

What has that got to do with the question of whether or not physical reality has been given the power to produce organic structures or organisms?

Stop twisting the discussion to suit you.

But you asked where evolution conflicts with Catholic dogma and so I brought up the existence of Adam in response, hardly a twisting of the discussion to suit me.

You make claims but the evidence suggests otherwise.

To clarify, evolution as it is understood requires a population. Humanity’s creation through one man can only be known through divine revelation. The two versions of reality don’t fit as they are understood.

The Catholic Church said that scientists can inquire in to the evolution of the human body so long as it is understood that the soul was created directly from God. So what does it matter if evolution requires a population or not. The soul is not a product of evolution and therefore it’s existence is not restricted by the question of population sizes, and since it is the soul united with the body that makes us personal beings capable of a relationship with God there is no conflict other than what exists in your imagination.

 

[o_mlly]

From a scientific point of view i am not going to simply assume that some intelligent being, from god knows where, manufactured organisms from physical parts. …

But that was not the statement. The statement was an observation that inanimate matter (which has never been observed to do so) does not possess properties with which to animate itself.

One who believes matter possesses such an animating property makes a religious claim, not a scientific claim. As scientists we are to be skeptical of any and all claims not supported by evidence.

 

[IWantGod]

One who believes matter possesses such an animating property makes a religious claim,

By that standard any scientific hypothesis is a religious claim.

 

[Aloysium]

So what does it matter if evolution requires a population or not.

You do remember, Adam, original sin, Eden, the fall, which is the reason for Christ’s incarnation, death and resurrection, and our own resurrection at the end of time. Also, I will try to get the point across again, since I did not make it clear in previous posts, where is love, the single most important aspect of existence, the Triune Godhead, in your cosmology? How does that fit together with evolutionary concepts? The ideas that you have thus far presented here are more in line with Deism than Christianity.