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.
By explaining everything, creationism fails as science. One of the strengths of science is that it knows its limits: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
Catholics take all the causes in its scientific understanding. Formal, material, efficient and final causes give us the best understanding of the cosmos. Both secularists and protestants have cut out the formal and final cause from their investigations.

Catholicism is the best because it considers all four.

There is the Catholic understanding of creation, and the incomplete protestant understanding. They are very different.

Once again I must correct you. Catholics know God to be almighty.
 
Last edited:
How very true. The attempt to force feed the science only definition here must be shown to be incomplete. Only the Catholic Church has the full, complete explanation. Mocking references that amount to "no supernatural anything allowed’ attempt to obscure this fact.

I hope anyone reading this can understand that Creation required someone beyond man.
 
Once again I must correct you. Catholics know God to be almighty.
Jews, Christians and Muslims believe the Abrahamic God to be almighty. As a Buddhist my scripture tells my that none of the gods are almighty: all gods are subject to karma, just like the rest of us.

rossum
 
How very true. The attempt to force feed the science only definition here must be shown to be incomplete. Only the Catholic Church has the full, complete explanation. Mocking references that amount to "no supernatural anything allowed’ attempt to obscure this fact.

I hope anyone reading this can understand that Creation required someone beyond man.
So i guess you still haven’t figured out the epistemological difference between scientific theories and metaphysical arguments.
 
Jews, Christians and Muslims believe the Abrahamic God to be almighty. As a Buddhist my scripture tells my that none of the gods are almighty: all gods are subject to karma, just like the rest of us.
So in your religion you could say that karma is the ultimate God, since it determines the fate of everything.
 
Last edited:
This sort of comment is not only unproductive, but provocative, It comes across as attempt to evoke the response that the person is saying should be stopped.
That post may be both provocative and productive. As a “bait”, the post produces more posts which may be its only goal. We’ve seen this before.

I suspect there are three reasons for this thread’s high post count: 1) the pent up demand to comment due to the banning of this topic for years on CAF (when was it lifted?), 2) the unprovability of macro-evolution (it remains in the realm of faith), and 3) a longtime absence of other threads in this forum that interest atheists.
 
Last edited:
I’ve watched these sorts of threads appear and disappear for years. The purpose appears to be product marketing but instead of Drink Coke!, it’s Accept Evolution. And this goes back and forth regardless of any comments to the contrary. And will continue forever.
 
… a longtime absence of other threads in this forum that interest atheists.
As far as I am aware, there are but one or two atheists posting on this thread. None of whom have used evolution to deny God’s existence. In fact I have expressly noted as much. And the one or two here appear to be interested in other topics. Whereas a couple of the nay sayers here rarely post anywhere else.

I have explained a few times why this thread has gone on so long. In a post a few hours ago in fact. It’s because you and others have this idea of God and you will, rightly or wrongly, refuse to move from that position (a fundamentalist position it must be said). Part of me says: ‘Well done. Stick to your guns. Your beliefs are yours alone’.

But to hold your position you must deny science. But still a part of me says: ‘Hey, go for your life’.

But this is a public forum and when you and others post scientific nonsense, there are a few who will not let it happen.
 
I forgot to mention. The “science only” crowd will tell you that you “deny science,” and they are not just referring to evolution which is unproven.
 
You hold on to your position that a belief in creation is a denial of science, when it repeatedly has been demonstrated that it is evolution that does so.

It underhandedly misinterprets and misuses the data to promote a philosophical system. At least I state where I am coming from quite clearly, that God is at the Centre and Ground of everything, and that it is only through that lens that we can truly know reality.

There have been interpretations of the science posted in this thread with which I do not personally agree, but actual scientific nonsense, it would seem that the most unrealistic comes from those who claim atoms can organize themselves into living forms.
 
So in your religion you could say that karma is the ultimate God, since it determines the fate of everything.
No. Karma is not a god. It is more like gravity. If you throw a stone up in the air than gravity will make that stone hit you on the head. Karma is the same:
Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

– Dhammapada 1:1-2
Alternatively: “As you sow, so shall you reap.”

You are the one who determines your fate. Your actions now and in the past determine what happens to you in future.

rossum
 
40.png
edwest:
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.
Where that’s been possible, 66,000 actually by November 2016, bacteria remained bacteria. Proof that evolution can happen according to some people, it seems. Go figure.
Assuming one generation is produced every 20 years for human beings, 66,000 x 20 = 1,320,000 years.
An organism reproducing every 5 years, 66,000 x 5 = 330,000 years.
An organism reproducing every 1 year, 66,000 x 1 = 66,000 years.
An organism reproducing every 6 months, 66,000 / 2 = 33,000 years.

The Lenski E.coli experiment is interesting, but I doubt they are going to find anything that is not consistent with the fossil record which is characterized by species stasis and the abrupt appearance of fully formed species. And the species stasis in the fossil record spans many millions of years even hundreds of millions of years. The Lenski experiment began in 1988 so it has only been going on for 30 years in an artificially controlled environment. They may have a very long wait if they are expecting something like a fruit fly to evolve out of the bacteria. All the evidence including simple observation indicates that the species of living things are very stable.
 
Last edited:
They may have a long wait if they are expecting something like a fruit fly to evolve out of the bacteria. All the evidence including simple observation indicates that the species of living things are very stable.
Yeah… but back in the olden days species were so unstable, that any environmental change that came along, would cause them to morph into completely new creatures…fascinating. :roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
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.
In Plato’s theory of the Ideas or Forms, he considered the species or forms of things to be immaterial, universals, unchanging, and eternal. The Fathers of the Church held the same belief concerning the unchangeable nature of the species of things and Augustine placed the ideas of Plato in the divine mind which is eternal and unchanging. The scholastic theologians held the same belief and this belief was continued among all the Church’s theologians and in scholastic philosophy up until the latter half of the 19th century when, after Darwin published The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, some catholics of various backgrounds published some works in defense of Darwin’s evolutionary theory which to this day has not been proven and probably can’t be proven especially if it never happened. So, Plato’s doctrine concerning the unchangeable nature of the species of things has not been proven wrong.
 
Last edited:
DARWIN & MONKEYS (excerpted from THE NOTEBOOKS 1943, December 20th)
Code:
   Jesus says:

 "One of the points at which your pride founders in error--which, above all, degrades precisely your haughtiness by giving you an origin that, if you were less corrupted by pride, you would repudiate as degrading--is that of Darwin's theory.

 In order not to admit God, who, in His power, was able to have created the universe from nothing and man from the already created mud, you take the paternity of a beast as your own.

Don't you realize you are diminishing yourselves, for--consider this--won't a beast--no matter how exemplary, selected, improved, and perfected in form and instinct, and, if your wish, even in mental formation--always be a beast?  Don't you realize this?  This testifies unfavorably regarding your pride as pseudo-supermen.

But if you fail to realize, I will not be the one to waste words to make you aware of it and converted from the error.  I ask you only one question which, in your great numbers, you have never asked yourselves.  And if you can answer Me with facts, I will no longer combat this degrading theory of yours.

If man is a spin-off from the monkey, which by progressive evolution has become man, how is it that over so many years in which you have maintained this theory you have never succeeded, not even with the perfected instruments and methods at present, in making a man from a monkey?  You could have taken the most intelligent offspring of a pair of intelligent moneys and then their intelligent offspring, and so on.  You would now have many generations of selected, instructed monkeys cared for by the most patient, tenacious, and sagacious scientific method.  But you would still have monkeys.  If there happened to be a mutation, it would be this: the beasts would be physically less strong than the former ones and morally more degenerate, for, with all your methods and instruments, you would have destroyed that perfection of the monkey which My Father created for these quadrumans.

Another question.  If man came from the monkey, how is it that man, even with grafts and repugnant forms of cross-fertilization, does not become a monkey again?  You would be capable even of attempting these horrors if you knew that it could give approvative sanction to your theory.  But you do not do so because you know that you would not be able to turn a man into a monkey.  You would turn him into an ugly son of man, a degenerate, perhaps a criminal.  But never a real monkey.  You do not try because you know beforehand that you would get a poor result and your reputation would emerge therefrom in ruins.

For this reason you do not do so.  For no other.  For you feel no remorse or horror over degrading a man to the level of a beast to maintain a thesis of yours.  You are capable of this and of much more.  You are already beasts because you deny God and kill the spirit, which distinguishes you from the beasts.
Your science causes Me horror.
http://www.valtorta.org/darwin_and_monkeys_defaultpage.html
 
In Plato’s theory of the Ideas or Forms,
I see no problem with the idea of a thing taking on a form according to a natural process. The idea that this conflicts with God’s creative act is itself unjustified. The question is whether or not that it happened and i have yet to see an argument that proves that the theory of evolution lacks the requirements of a legitimate scientific theory. In fact it seems to me that the only reason it’s being attacked as a theory is because people here think it some how conflicts with God’s creative act. I know that people here try to argue that it fails as a theory, but not only does their arguments undermine the scientific method itself, i don’t believe that this is the motivating factor for why they are arguing as such. The reason they argue against evolution is because it conflicts with their understanding of the bible, and it conflicts with what they perceive as evidence, even scientific evidence, of God’s existence; something they value. And they will even go as far as to imply that the pope is a heretic if he stands in there way. That’s the bottom line.
 
Last edited:
The reason they argue against evolution is because it conflicts with their understanding of the bible, and it conflicts with what they perceive as evidence, even scientific evidence, of God’s existence; something they value.
I would discuss the argument rather than assume motives, as if that had any bearing on the truth of the matter.

You began this thread. You tell me why I should believe in some idea that is, at least to me, clearly inferior to the understanding I have developed, in my journey through life, and I must add, heavily influenced by what I have read here. I’m a science guy, very materially oriented, interested in how the total picture fits together. It is insufficient to simply say God did it; what specifically is it that He, Love itself, does?
 
I would discuss the argument rather than assume motives, as if that had any bearing on the truth of the matter.

You began this thread. You tell me why I should believe in some idea that is, at least to me, clearly inferior to the understanding I have developed, in my journey through life, and I must add, heavily influenced by what I have read here. I’m a science guy, very materially oriented, interested in how the total picture fits together. It is insufficient to simply say God did it; what specifically is it that He, Love itself, does?
I don’t know why you bother with science, why not just say God makes the planets spin and tides move and keeps your body stuck to the ground. Why not just go for the puppet on the string theory of the universe if you are going to have such a major problem with the theory of evolution.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know why you bother with science
This is all about science, how things work. Evolution isn’t about science; it is a philosophical system utilizing science to present chaos (random mutations) and power (natural selection) as the ultimate realities of existence.

God brings matter into being as the building blocks of life, events which have the relational properties, defining what they are, as elucidated thus far through physics and chemistry. These fields represent the two basic strata of the existential hierarchy that is the universe. As we go up that ladder of complexity, where individual beings possess new properties in addition to those of their components, we find cellular, plant and animal life, culminating in the existence of humanity, capable of knowing and acting not merely instinctively, but freely.

Matter cannot organize itself into a human being. It lacks even the potential to come together, by virtue of its own relational capacities to form a cell. What is matter, what is a cell, what is the ability to act, perceive and feel that belongs to animals, exists in ourselves, but under the direction of the spirit, now damaged by sin, this had to be created every step of the way.

There is a deist understanding that sees matter as having been created with the intrinsic properties to enable it to produce the diversity of material forms that exist on earth, by its own volition. A nuturalist/pantheistic model would see this as an intrinsic property of a universe unfolding itself. In both cases, the higher complexity of the higher system that contains those components, let’s say ourselves, is said to emerge from the matter itself. The whole, greater than its parts, is said to arise spontaneously of its own accord, in the case of atheism, because it is built into matter, according to deism, or because the universal mind transforms itself. There exists no love in any of these considerations.

Love is the ultimate Reality, the Triune Godhead, which brings all this into existence. That being Truth, we seek to understand how this world of transient and illusory goods, where chaos and power wield their influence over anything that clings to that which is of the world, how this condition came to be. We seek to find the next step beyond the basic material relationships of which everything is constituted. It’s still science, maybe call it meta-science, knowledge of that which lies beyond what is enlightened through empiricism. That light which puts everything into perspective is love, embracing the sciences for what they reveal from the smallest to the largest of things, the glory of God.

I would ask, why bother with evolution? Where does it get you?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top