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

[IWantGod]

If Man destroyed the earth with nuclear weapons, and nothing survived, that would just be a part of nature evolution,since man is a part of evolution too. But that would be a contradiction for evolution, because evolution is all about things surviving.

You know, there is not one peer reviewed article that has described the evolutionary process as being capable of surviving world wide destruction on an atomic scale. So i don’t understand why you would think that is a contradiction?

This is the problem, you are all attacking a straw-man of the theory of evolution, which you probably learned second hand from an atheist using evolution to defend his position…You are doing exactly what some atheists do to us; Building straw-men and knocking them down, and then shouting success…

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

If Man destroyed the earth with nuclear weapons, and nothing survived, that would just be a part of nature evolution,since man is a part of evolution too. But that would be a contradiction for evolution, because evolution is all about things surviving.

You know, there is not one peer reviewed article that has described the evolutionary process as being capable of surviving world wide destruction on an atomic scale. So i don’t understand why you would think that is a contradiction?

This is the problem, you are all attacking a straw-man of the theory of evolution, which you probably learned second hand from an atheist using evolution to defend his position…You are doing exactly what some atheists do to us; building straw-men and knocking them down…

I haven’t learned anything second hand from an atheist.Evolution(through man) created nuclear weapons, and evolution doesn’t have an answers for them .

 

[IWantGod]

Evolution created nuclear weapons,

Nurse, please take me away, I’m done.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Evolution created nuclear weapons,

Nurse, please take me away, I’m done.

Evolution**(through man)** created nuclear weapons

There you go, I spelled it out for you, so you could understand.

 

[Wozza]

Techno2000:

Evolution created nuclear weapons,

Nurse, please take me away, I’m done.

I suggest a stiif g and t and a good night’s rest. You’ll be fine in the morning. But to be serious, I’ll tell you the reason I keep posting and why you should.

It’s certainly not to change the minds of the usual suspects. There are some things in heaven and earth that are fixed and unchangeable. It’s because I am sure that people call into this thread now and then to see what the fuss is about. And some people are perhaps in two minds about the matter. Maybe they’re on the fence.

Then they come across comments that say that not being able to reproduce with another species is somehow a step backwards. That God is behind evolution but at the same time it’s an atheistic attempt to deny God. And they’ll try to deny evolution by posting links to articles that require you to accept the process (confirmed in the articles) to make sense of the point they are trying to make. They’ll confuse abiogenesis with evolution. They’ll say something like ‘It’s still just a bacteria’ when that is absurd as saying ‘It’s still just a mammal’. And the most recent (stop giggling at the back!), that evolution created nuclear weapons.

Now if someone on the fence does check out this thread and reads those type of comments, and dozens like them, which side do you think she is going to come down on?

This thread is not a debate. It isn’t even a conversation. It’s an encouragement to those who post comments such as I have mentioned to keep on posting. Because if you keep poking away then their position will be clear for all to see. It’s good to have it in writing, out in the fresh air, bathed in sunlight.

Maybe I’ve let the cat out of the bag now. But it won’t matter. They’ll still keep doing it.

 

[Aloysium]

panic around the idea that natural events played a part in the development of species, and that because science doesn’t say anything about God it is therefore a product of an atheistic conspiracy.

As an aside, since you are commenting on others’ motivations, I will return the favour.

I don’t think you are picking up the right message, or at least, I don’t see it, or perhaps I am misreading yours. But, panic? Even anxiety, is not what I pick up. Anger at being misled and coerced into accepting the beliefs of the herd, especially when those beliefs are clearly simplistic and downright wrong, might be closer to the truth of the matter. It seems to me that what you are seeing in others, with whom you have no contact other than these words, may be internally driven, a warning from yourself that you might be going astray, or perhaps some sort of memory of an unpleasant relationship. Maybe you are merely acting in the manner that you’ve been subject to, minimizing the beliefs of others, describing those with whom you disagree as being weak, motivated by fear and delusional, seeing conspiracies.

Give it a rest, in other words. Focus on the arguments and inform where you feel it is necessary. Comments like the one quoted do nothing to further your position, if that is your intent. They are understood as a means by which you stabilize your own vision of the world, the people in it, social forces and attitudes. You come across as someone not to be taken seriously, although those who favour your views, or are against those that are in opposition, will of course cheer you on as you make no points to anyone but yourselves.

 

[Aloysium]

Techno2000:

Evolution created nuclear weapons,

Nurse, please take me away, I’m done.

Since you need your medication and will be out for a while, I will try to respond for you based on what you’ve previously written,

I think you believe that God utilized “evolution” to create our bodies and then ensouled some simian creature with an eternal, rational soul. So evolution would not have created nuclear weapons, which were conceived and built by human beings, who have fallen from grace into sin.

Random mutations, occurring based on just the laws of nature would be considered as sufficient to drive the process that led to the development of the human brain, capable of executing the capacities of the human spirit. It would be through natural selection that this body was moulded, it’s appearance having no greater beauty than that of a fly.

If you could fill me in on where you think I’ve got your message wrong, it would be appreciated.

 

[PickyPicky]

Actually… I’m wrong, since man is product of evolution if he chooses to wipeout thousands of earthly habitats it would be a nature environmental change. The problem is evolution has no answers for this […]

What do you mean by “has no answers for this”?

[…] so evolution can create something that can destroy evolution,which is contradiction …right ?

Wrong. If you mean evolution can create something that can stop evolution, I see no contradiction there. Where is the contradiction?

 

[IWantGod]

downright wrong,

That’s’ a stretch.

 

[PickyPicky]

It would be through natural selection that this body was moulded, it’s appearance having no greater beauty than that of a fly

That’s an odd comment. Why would it follow?

 

[buffalo]

I used to spend a lot of time debating atheists on various online sites, and one thing I noticed was how remarkablely similar they all think and argue. It reminded me of the cultish, fundamentalist, herd mentality of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Apparently, “free thinkers” all share the same brain. Interesting.

An evolved brain is not a reliable truth detector.

 

[buffalo]

But it won’t matter. They’ll still keep doing it.

Yep. The science is making the case for ID. I will keep repeating it as necessary.

 

[o_mlly]

If you mean evolution can create something that can stop evolution, I see no contradiction there. Where is the contradiction?

The contradiction is the claim that “evolution can create something”. That which evolves does not create, that is to bring a thing into being from nothing.

But if you change the claim from “create something” to “evolve something” then the contradiction disappears iff by “evolve” you mean to bring the thing out of itself" as an embryo evolves into a fetus.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

But it won’t matter. They’ll still keep doing it.

I will keep repeating it as necessary.

Excellent.

 

[PickyPicky]

The contradiction is the claim that “evolution can create something ”. That which evolves does not create, that is to bring a thing into being from nothing.

But if you change the claim from “create something” to “ evolve something ” then the contradiction disappears iff by “evolve” you mean to bring the thing out of itself" as an embryo evolves into a fetus.

It was Techno who made the “create something” statement and who claimed the contradiction. Perhaps you should have a word with Techno.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

downright wrong,

That’s’ a stretch.

The first of any kind of creature would have been created whole, with an intact cellular structure including all the necessary anatomical and physiological processes that allow for life, the existence of individual organisms participating in their environment. All of this began in Eden, the ontologically initial cause of this temporal universe. If we focus solely on the DNA, which we may understand as being analogous to a hard-drive containing an operating system within the totality of a computer, it did not develop step by step. Definitely creation took place in jumps, from simple material forms, to cellular beings, multicellular beings, beings with instinctive appetites and behaviour, to we ourselves. These define time, however one wishes to understand it. Since the fall, everything has been devolving.

One could present a case that in fact evolution leading up to the creation of mankind is built into the process of evolution. This could be stated to be a natural principle beyond the simple workings of atoms, but similarly a universal law, like entropy. This is an assumption, not any more scientific than my opinion stated above.

All this could be a fluke as some deists would argue, arising from a basic physical order that was created by a purely transcendent god.

What I’m getting at is that there is no empirical proof that random chemical mutations of the genome and natural selection produced all this wonder. Evolution is merely a story into which scientific facts are inserted, an interpretation of what we know through reason, and from my perspective, an illusion that misunderstands the truth.

 

[Techno2000]

o_mlly:

The contradiction is the claim that “evolution can create something ”. That which evolves does not create, that is to bring a thing into being from nothing.

But if you change the claim from “create something” to “ evolve something ” then the contradiction disappears iff by “evolve” you mean to bring the thing out of itself" as an embryo evolves into a fetus.

It was Techno who made the “create something” statement and who claimed the contradiction. Perhaps you should have a word with Techno.

Evolution produced animals to use their defense mechanisms (weapons) to defend and kill. Man (which so-called evolution produced) has nuclear weapons that evolution can never overcome.Because evolution could never make a ecosystem fit enough to withstand nuclear annihilation. The contradiction is… evolution is supposedly about life, yet it has indirectly created something opposite of that.

PS these are my own thoughts, I didnt get them from creationist website.

 

[o_mlly]

It was Techno who made the “create something” statement and who claimed the contradiction. Perhaps you should have a word with Techno.

I read in your post that you did not see the contradiction.

The point is that everything that evolves does so with only the materials present in its being. A mutation, or more correctly, a permutation, is a rearrangement of existing elements; not the creation of new elements.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

It would be through natural selection that this body was moulded, it’s appearance having no greater beauty than that of a fly

That’s an odd comment. Why would it follow?

All of creation reveals the Beauty that is God.

Although the things that exist in the dark, those which eyes cannot see and were not meant to be seen, appear to be less so in the light, they are in their place, wondrous.

A fly exists in the light and is an amazing creature, but in terms of looks, I would say that the beauty is in the functionality. I’d love to go into how flies perceive the world and each other; their courtship behaviours, not so much. I believe the female fly is the one which decides whether mating will occur and there must be some instinctive decision making at work. At any rate, they are beautiful in their own way, but not visually.

While evolutionary theory has no place for the beautiful, it is clear that it is a major factor in procreation, as we find proof in the peacock. The utilitarian philosophy behind the idea of natural selection, would interpret beautiful as that which signifies the health of an organism; the more “beautiful” the healthier and hence better choice as a mate. It does work to some extent, but where a God mediated evolution is being considered, as is the case in micro-evolution, God-given instinctive perceptions, the “dreams” of the creature, form the basis for mate selection as the ideal form is automatically pursued. This would require God’s ongoing involvement in His creation, as Divine Artist, and precludes there being a deist god who initiated a process and let it run.

I would go on, but hope this is sufficient a response to your question.

 

[PickyPicky]

The contradiction is… evolution is supposedly about life, yet it has indirectly created something opposite of that

There’s no contradiction. Evolution works on existing life forms. If in your scenario no life has survived, evolution cannot happen. If, as with other mass extinction events that have occurred, some life survives, evolution will work on that.