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

[Wozza]

No. You’re all grown up. Look it up yourself. I’m up to the back teeth spoon feeding you info.

 

[Techno2000]

No. You’re all grown up. Look it up yourself. I’m up to the back teeth spoon feeding you info.

The bio-diversity of the 10 million different species of plants and animals we have today makes macroevolution even more implausible.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

No. You’re all grown up. Look it up yourself. I’m up to the back teeth spoon feeding you info.

The bio-diversity of the 10 million different species of plants and animals we have today makes macroevolution even more implausible.

Of course it does. I’ll let the scientific community know as soon as I can.

 

[Richca]

Indeed and agreed. But I was highlighting the fact that people can only agree or not on the claim that specific definitions of any given god are true.

The God in whom Ed believes and the God in whom IWantGod believes are identical in some ways but totally different in others. So neither of them believes in what the other does.

You cannot pick and choose the attributes of God as you feel would better suit yourself. I will grant that the God in which IWantGod believes might exist, whereas Ed will not. So he is more an atheist in that regard than am I.

Assuming the God of IWantGod and of Ed’s is the Christian God, than your idea of God is neither the God of IWantGod or of Ed’s.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Wozza:

No. You’re all grown up. Look it up yourself. I’m up to the back teeth spoon feeding you info.

The bio-diversity of the 10 million different species of plants and animals we have today makes macroevolution even more implausible.

Of course it does. I’ll let the scientific community know as soon as I can.

There are millions fungal species, how many "environmental changes " do you suppose it took evolution to produce that amount of bio-diversity ?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Techno2000:

Wozza:

No. You’re all grown up. Look it up yourself. I’m up to the back teeth spoon feeding you info.

The bio-diversity of the 10 million different species of plants and animals we have today makes macroevolution even more implausible.

Of course it does. I’ll let the scientific community know as soon as I can.

There are millions fungal species, how many "environmental changes " do you suppose it took evolution to produce that amount of bio-diversity ?

Another rule for forum debate: Don’t ask questions when you don’t understand the subject well enough to know the answer yourself.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Indeed and agreed. But I was highlighting the fact that people can only agree or not on the claim that specific definitions of any given god are true.

The God in whom Ed believes and the God in whom IWantGod believes are identical in some ways but totally different in others. So neither of them believes in what the other does.

You cannot pick and choose the attributes of God as you feel would better suit yourself. I will grant that the God in which IWantGod believes might exist, whereas Ed will not. So he is more an atheist in that regard than am I.

Assuming the God of IWantGod and of Ed’s is the Christian God, than your idea of God is neither the God of IWantGod or of Ed’s.

You must be confusing me with someone else. I don’t have an idea of God. God is what other people tell me He is.

IWantGod’s God and Ed’s God are not the same deity. IWantGod’s idea of his God may be right. Ed’s is wrong.

 

[Richca]

Wozza:

Indeed and agreed. But I was highlighting the fact that people can only agree or not on the claim that specific definitions of any given god are true.

The God in whom Ed believes and the God in whom IWantGod believes are identical in some ways but totally different in others. So neither of them believes in what the other does.

You cannot pick and choose the attributes of God as you feel would better suit yourself. I will grant that the God in which IWantGod believes might exist, whereas Ed will not. So he is more an atheist in that regard than am I.

Assuming the God of IWantGod and of Ed’s is the Christian God, than your idea of God is neither the God of IWantGod or of Ed’s.

This has got to be one of the greatest ironies in the history of mankind, namely, an atheist (no offense) instructing and catechizing catholics and christians about their faith.

 

[Aloysium]

For anyone who actually has an interest in science I would direct you to a paper published last week in Astronomy and Astrophysics , by Oxford astrophysicist, Dr Jamie Farnes.

He proposes that the universe is made up of matter with positive and negative mass. Positive masses attract each other as would those which are negative; when the opposites meet each other, they repel. As opposed to matter with a positive mass, and the energy which it represents, the totality of which cannot be created or destroyed, negative masses are continuously created. As the universe continues to expand, the dark matter/energy does not become less dense. and this would explain why. Dark matter halos are understood to surround galaxies, basically holding them together so they don’t tear themselves apart. All this is in line with radio telescopic observations and what Einstein referred to as his biggest blunder, the cosmological constant. Dark energy and Dark matter would a single substance with, as Dr Farnes phrased it “positive mass matter surfing on a sea of negative masses.”

We’ll see how this is developed as the research follows the theory. I don’t believe there will be thousands of posts on this forum in regards to the proposal.

For those interested:

Here’s a link to the article:
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2018/12/aa32898-18/aa32898-18.html

Here’s Dr Farnes YouTube channel:

JamieFarnes

Share your videos with friends, family, and the world

www.youtube.com

 

[Wozza]

Richca:

Wozza:

Indeed and agreed. But I was highlighting the fact that people can only agree or not on the claim that specific definitions of any given god are true.

The God in whom Ed believes and the God in whom IWantGod believes are identical in some ways but totally different in others. So neither of them believes in what the other does.

You cannot pick and choose the attributes of God as you feel would better suit yourself. I will grant that the God in which IWantGod believes might exist, whereas Ed will not. So he is more an atheist in that regard than am I.

Assuming the God of IWantGod and of Ed’s is the Christian God, than your idea of God is neither the God of IWantGod or of Ed’s.

…an atheist (no offense)…

You should move away from the idea that the term ‘atheist’ is somehow derogatory. Just because some people mentally curl a lip when using the word doesn’t make it a bad thing. But no offence taken in any case.

 

[rossum]

So, marble crayfish are going to produce more marble crayfish ?

Yes. That is part of the definition of a species, it is reproductively isolated.

rossum

 

[Richca]

You bet it’s unoriginal. There are only so many ways to say: ‘This thread is not an attempt by anyone to deny God’s existence’.

Are you sure your on the right forum and thread?

But say I will until it gets through. Or even if it is ignored I will keep repeating it because to state otherwise is not being truthful.

If you lke I will try to format it in iambic penameter or maybe as a haiku. But it will be repeated as often as required. Which is when you or others continue to attempt this deflection.

Okie dokie, whatever suits your fancy

 

[Wozza]

Are you sure your on the right forum and thread?

Is this the section for discussing philosophy? And the thread discussing the scientific validity of evolution? Then yeah, right place…

 

[PetraG]

I believe in natural evolution overseen and driven by the supernatural Creator.

All that we divide into “natural” and “supernatural” are the result of Divine Providence. It is an artificial division, actually, because the division is based on what we humans can predict and what we can’t.

 

[Richca]

Spyridon:

I believe in natural evolution overseen and driven by the supernatural Creator.

All that we divide into “natural” and “supernatural” are the result of Divine Providence. It is an artificial division, actually, because the division is based on what we humans can predict and what we can’t.

Strictly speaking and theologically, creation is God’s direct and supernatural activity in the production of the creation or the universe out of nothing (and its formation according to creationists such as the works in the Genesis seven day creation narrative) and it is distinguished from the work of divine providence which has to do with God guiding and preserving creation. Accordingly, divine providence presupposes creation.

 

[Wozza]

Spyridon:

I believe in natural evolution overseen and driven by the supernatural Creator.

All that we divide into “natural” and “supernatural” are the result of Divine Providence. It is an artificial division, actually, because the division is based on what we humans can predict and what we can’t.

Bingo. Give Spyridon a prize off the top shelf! One of the very few people who understand the difference.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Wozza:

Techno2000:

Wozza:

No. You’re all grown up. Look it up yourself. I’m up to the back teeth spoon feeding you info.

The bio-diversity of the 10 million different species of plants and animals we have today makes macroevolution even more implausible.

Of course it does. I’ll let the scientific community know as soon as I can.

There are millions fungal species, how many "environmental changes " do you suppose it took evolution to produce that amount of bio-diversity ?

Another rule for forum debate: Don’t ask questions when you don’t understand the subject well enough to know the answer yourself.

I do know the answer, it would take an impossible number of environmental changes for evolution to produce that amount of fungal diversity.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Techno2000:

Wozza:

Techno2000:

Wozza:

No. You’re all grown up. Look it up yourself. I’m up to the back teeth spoon feeding you info.

The bio-diversity of the 10 million different species of plants and animals we have today makes macroevolution even more implausible.

Of course it does. I’ll let the scientific community know as soon as I can.

There are millions fungal species, how many "environmental changes " do you suppose it took evolution to produce that amount of bio-diversity ?

Another rule for forum debate: Don’t ask questions when you don’t understand the subject well enough to know the answer yourself.

I do know the answer, it would take an impossible number of environmental changes for evolution to produce that amount of fungal diversity.

Of course it would. I’ll let the scientific community know as soon as I can.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Wozza:

Techno2000:

Wozza:

Techno2000:

Wozza:

No. You’re all grown up. Look it up yourself. I’m up to the back teeth spoon feeding you info.

The bio-diversity of the 10 million different species of plants and animals we have today makes macroevolution even more implausible.

Of course it does. I’ll let the scientific community know as soon as I can.

There are millions fungal species, how many "environmental changes " do you suppose it took evolution to produce that amount of bio-diversity ?

Another rule for forum debate: Don’t ask questions when you don’t understand the subject well enough to know the answer yourself.

I do know the answer, it would take an impossible number of environmental changes for evolution to produce that amount of fungal diversity.

Of course it would. I’ll let the scientific community know as soon as I can.

Don’t put your trust in the scientific community, they won’t you help you in the next life.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

So, marble crayfish are going to produce more marble crayfish ?

Yes. That is part of the definition of a species, it is reproductively isolated.

rossum

How is reproductively isolated an reproductive advantage ?