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


I know it isn’t. Go figure.

I never did have a copy of “The Origin of the Species”, but I can empathize with the feeling, always having been a science guy.

No chance of that happening, friend.


So here is the question that @buffalo refuses to answer: Discounting personal preference, by what criteria do you decide which theory is the better one at describing available evidence?


See my respose to Rossum if you are interested in a conversation.

When one starts pointing out contradictions in a person’s story, of which they are unaware and wish to remain so, the usual response one gets is “Why are you trying to confuse me.” Obfuscation in this situation is in the mind of the listener. You don’t want to hear how God is at the Centre of all this, always was and will be.

I always strive for honesty and expect the same of others.

I also expect people to discuss the topic and not each other. I wish you would comply, but then you are choosing to use this thread to speak about what you really want, and usually, from what I read it is not the OP. I am also not doing so here in order to bring the level of this conversation up to what it should be.


And all life returns back to God from where it came.


You know evolution is true. Do you include “randomness” in your sense of it? That’s the part I call balloney. It seems to me like a claim of magic. Kinda like what Steven Hawking tried to do with the “Gravity made the universe from nothing before Gravity was a thing.”

I have no problem with the idea that God created everything alive through evolution. I have massive problems with the notion that it happened randomly. Show me complex, intelligent things happening “randomly” elsewhere in nature, and you’ll have yourself a convert.


Did God have to use evolution to create the fish, loaves and wine?


No. Me, I’m open to both ideas of God using evolution and interjecting at various points etc I don’t mind it. I do mind magical claims, however, no matter how widely believed they are by scientists. Scientists don’t get to escape logic just by having the label ‘scientist’. If someone is claiming all this happened randomly, they are claiming magic, pure and simple.

In addition, show me the magical random process that turns dead elements into a living organism in the first place. It’s no different than claiming resurrection, yet a good bunch of them will laugh at the religious notion of giving life to dead material when you call it ‘resurrection’.


A conversation needs input from at least two people. The conversation must stop when any of those taking part puts forward something to bolster his or her argument that is plainly wrong. Otherwise what follows is based on incorrect information.

I cannot continue a conversation with you on entropy if you insist on it being a constant. Anything that you state from that point on based on that misunderstanding will be worthless.

I assume that you understand that. Just as if you wanted to discuss geology and wanted to claim that the planet is 6,000 years old. Further discussion on that basis is futile.

So what you need to do is accept that in this matter you are wrong, for whatever reason you might want to give, and then the conversation moves on.

This thread is an excellent example of people not accepting basic scientific principles and carrying on arguments that are based on incorrect statements. So if you want to be honest, then simply correct what you have stated. I mean, how difficult can it be…?


What does it matter whether you label it a ‘constant’ or not? Just give me an example of something else defying entropy except through an intelligent process, and your point is made.


Asked and answered so many times: Empirical Evidence


I think he meant it is a norm.


Then you indicate again what little you know of the scientific process. Evidence is what any given person uses to formuate a theory. If you have two theories, then both have access to the same evidence. But one will be a better explanation for that evidence than the other.

So it’s not that Creationism has different or better evidence. They are using exactly the same information as everyone else. They then propose their theory which purports to explain that evidence.

So your answer is no answer at all. In fact, it shows that you don’t understand the basis on which the question was asked. So I’ll ask it yet again:

Apart from personal opinion, on what basis do you determine that one thery is better than another?


The one that has empirical evidence.


Which is a meaningless concept. But he didn’t say ‘norm’ in any case. He said ‘constant’. Maybe he didn’t really know what a constant is. Maybe he’ll tell us that so we’ll know why he said it. Until that time, and in fact after that time, what he said was monstrously wrong and it needs to be acknowledged.


That is not what you actually did.


Is the solar system closed?


Uh? I had to check to make sure that was a different post. because you just said exactly the same thing when it was just pointed out that all parties have access to the same evidence. It’s not that onse side suddenly cries ‘Eureka’ and produces a magical creationist bunny out of fundamentalist’s hat. They have the same evidence! Evidence cannot therefore be used to differentiate between theories.

Do you not understand any of this?


Do they really? There are some who outright reject any evidence that is contrary to their view. They a priori rule it out. Methodological naturalism is one case.


It’s hierarchic. Effectively closed as regards what it contains but some energy is exchanged between it and the rest of the galaxy.

If you have a point (as well as asking the question you have been asked multiple times), why not make it?


You really don’t understand this.

Evidence is evidence. The explanation for whether it is acceptable or whether it relates to or is germane to a theory forms part of that theory. It is, to all intents and purposes, the theory itself: ‘Here is some evidence, my theory says X about it’.

Yet again, apart from personal opinion, now you know that any given theory can accept or reject evidence for sound scientific reasoning, how do you determine the theory that best explains the evidence?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.