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.
Thank you for making it clear that you are not coming at this from the science side.

rossum
 
Wozza said:
Only someone like you you could describe something that was inherent from the very first post and has been explained to you on multiple ocassions as being the basis for this thread as ‘a breakthrough’.

Or maybe this is the highlight of your forum life: ‘On a Catholic forum I got everyone to agree that God is behind evolution’.

I’m happy for you, mate. Well done. Although personally I think that you set the bar a little too low. But baby steps, eh?
Click to expand...
We now agree that micro-evolution is intelligently designed. Progress.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Wozza:
Only someone like you you could describe something that was inherent from the very first post and has been explained to you on multiple ocassions as being the basis for this thread as ‘a breakthrough’.

Or maybe this is the highlight of your forum life: ‘On a Catholic forum I got everyone to agree that God is behind evolution’.

I’m happy for you, mate. Well done. Although personally I think that you set the bar a little too low. But baby steps, eh?
Click to expand...
We now agree that micro-evolution is intelligently designed. Progress.
Click to expand...
Ah, you noticed your error. But a bit too late now. You can’t even delete it as I quoted you. in my post.
buffalo said:
We agree intelligent design drives evolution.
Click to expand...
Progress, as you say.
 
Aloysium said:
I’m reading this to say that atheists have accepted that evolution would be a guided process, guided by God. This is would be a contradiction.
Click to expand...
I just want to clear up your misconception. I am an Agnostic and know many Atheists. What we would claim scientifically is that we currently cannot rule out God starting or shaping the process. We think that the evidence isn’t available yet to claim why evolution is used. All we can give is the evidence for how it occurred. Some scientists may be confident that God was not needed for guidance but they are stepping outside the bounds of science at that point and giving a philosophical opinion as the evidence doesn’t yet exist to claim it scientifically.

(Back to my looky loo status)…
 
Wozza said:
Ah, you noticed your error. But a bit too late now. You can’t even delete it as I quoted you. in my post.

f8aeef26bfc84b97d8b994f3c890bcb0b543ab1b.png
buffalo:
Click to expand...
I made no error. This went exactly as planned.

You well know by now no one argues micro-evolution aka adaptation. It is macro that is the issue.
 
Aloysium said:
40.png
Richca:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m thinking that the use of the word unchanging when applied to material things takes the life out of them.
Click to expand...
What is meant by the word ‘unchanging’ in relation to the species of things is their essence, nature, or substance. Things undergo many accidental changes all the time without however a change to their substance, essence, or nature. For example, our bodies undergo a continual change in dimensions from being an infant to adulthood. This is a bodily accidental change but we remain substantially human beings composed of soul or spirit (form) and body (matter) and the body remains substantially a human body. It is not just bodily or material accidental changes that we undergo, but also spiritual accidental changes in our intellect and will. For example, we grow in knowledge and think new thoughts all the time and we are performing new actions all the time with our will by willing to do them including willing to think on new thoughts. These human actions perfect our nature as human beings if they be good actions or if they be bad actions they have the opposite effect, namely, bad actions are a defect of nature and a tending to non-being and nothingness. Human actions proceed from our substance or nature and they are accidents of our being because we remain substantially individual human beings of a human nature and the same person. These accidents do not cause a substantial change in us or change our nature from being human beings to some other species or nature of thing. Essentially, what we’re talking about here is that there a distinction between substantial and accidental change in things. Substantial change involves a change in the nature or species of something, accidental change does not.

You appear to indicate what I’m talking about here in a certain sense in the last paragraph of your post.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
rossum:
Yep. You don’t get to use your own definition of macro-evolution. A new species is macro-evolution.
Click to expand...
Here we go again. Losing function equals a new species.
Click to expand...
Here we ago again. A loss of one function (breeding with the ancestor species) is replaced by another function (breeding with the new species). It is only under a very imaginative way of describing things that one says there was loss of function, as if the organism becomes less capable to succeed in its environment. To most objective observers the new species is overall more capable.
 
Techno2000 said:
Evolution sounds like a New Age book I read one time, A Course in Miracles.At first it sounded like it was saying lot, but in the end, it wasn’t saying anything at al
Click to expand...
“great swelling words of emptiness” - 2Peter2:18.

The belief that Darwinian evolution explains the history of life on earth is completely useless in any practical sense. Applied science just ignores it.
 
“rossum said:
By explaining everything, creationism fails as science. One of the strengths of science is that it knows its limits:
Click to expand...
Creationism isn’t science - it steps in when science reaches its limits - for example, when explaining the origins and history of life on earth.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
buffalo:
40.png
rossum:
Yep. You don’t get to use your own definition of macro-evolution. A new species is macro-evolution.
Click to expand...
Here we go again. Losing function equals a new species.
Click to expand...
Here we ago again. A loss of one function (breeding with the ancestor species) is replaced by another function (breeding with the new species). It is only under a very imaginative way of describing things that one says there was loss of function, as if the organism becomes less capable to succeed in its environment. To most objective observers the new species is overall more capable.
Click to expand...
What species in this day and age is not capable of succeeding in it’s own environment ?
 
Last edited:
Edgar said:
40.png
IWantGod:
True, but then i wouldn’t be famous for having one of the longest threads on Catholic Answers. Thank-you everyone for your contribution.
Click to expand...
Great things can be achieved when we all work as a team.
Click to expand...
Teamwork… makes dream work,that’s what they tell me at my job, anyway. 🙂
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
40.png
buffalo:
40.png
rossum:
Yep. You don’t get to use your own definition of macro-evolution. A new species is macro-evolution.
Click to expand...
Here we go again. Losing function equals a new species.
Click to expand...
Here we ago again. A loss of one function (breeding with the ancestor species) is replaced by another function (breeding with the new species). It is only under a very imaginative way of describing things that one says there was loss of function, as if the organism becomes less capable to succeed in its environment. To most objective observers the new species is overall more capable.
Click to expand...
What species in this day and age is not capable of succeeding in it’s own environment ?
Click to expand...
Do you not think about the questions you ask before you ask them? I don’t think that you do. What you are asking is: ‘What creatures are becoming extinct’. I just asked my grandson and he gave me two examples. Let’s see if you can beat a six year old.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top