A
Aloysium
Guest
This goes both ways.
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
Fair enough. However, as has been pointed out many times in this thread, Divine Revelation is unchanging. What ‘progress’ might we expect in terms of Revelation?Gorgias:
This goes both ways.
D
Dan123
Guest
I’d say this is incomplete, theories need to be rooted in observations. Airplanes might fly by creating pressure differentials between the top and bottom of the wings, but they also might fly because invisible angels fly under the plane and lift it up. The second ‘theory’ is unfalsifiable and also lacks any tangible evidence to support it and so even if you wanted to call into question the first theory, the second wouldn’t be an equal alternative.
Likewise creationism is unfalsifiable because it invokes an all powerful creator, if we presuppose such a being exists then of course everything described in genesis is possible, the question becomes is there any tangible evidence to support it. On the flip side evolution is absolutely falsifiable, this is how Bill Nye ended his debate with Ken Ham, just find modern and ancient animals living together or anything to dispute it. So far when we dig in the ground we only see things which fit with current understanding.
How long does it take God to blow some dust around then? And how do you know this?
Thousands of years is literally nothing in terms of what it takes to cause larger changes.
Why not? Depends on how you define kinds doesn’t it? Humans are great apes, is human the kind or is ape the kind? Homonids are primates, is hominid the kind or is primate the kind? Primates are mammal, is primates the kind or is ‘mammals’ the kind?
If you insist on defining kind as species then you’re correct it’s incompatible. But I would quite frankly think people would be eager to point out evolution theory actually supports this notion of ‘bringing forth according to their kind’. Every descendant of the first hominid is still a hominid, every descendant of the first primate is still a primate, every descendant of the first mammal is still a mammal.
D
Dan123
Guest
Abiogenesis is literally a practically new frontier of science, so no there’s no generally accepted ideas on how this happened.
There’s another thread here asking how we determine or measure design, if you know how please contribute because we’re all stumped
A mathematical model yes, no scientist is claiming it as more than that.
Simply that there’s not enough evidence to warrant believing in them.
M
mVitus
Guest
To expound on that, Dan means scientifically speaking. Since the majority of scientists believe in a higher power of some sort.
D
Dan123
Guest
Ah yes, thanks for clarifying, I did indeed mean from a scientific point of view not one of faith.
M
mVitus
Guest
An interesting view there as it would come to seeing. But to bring up the scale, perhaps grains of sand would be another example. In that case they’re all part of the beach but we are more accustomed to divorcing grains of sand from a beach so as to view them differently. (In my experience at least, if I look at a portion of the beach, I’ll be focused on the grains.)
Though I think it may be plausible to say that not distinguishing every individual is required for seeing every individual. I think of the impressionist artwork.
Seeing that would be to see the whole picture, all the dots, even though when you look closer you would notice small dots of paint with no rhyme or reason. But by looking at all the dots together, you get the full meaning of seeing all of them.
Though I think it may be plausible to say that not distinguishing every individual is required for seeing every individual. I think of the impressionist artwork.
Seeing that would be to see the whole picture, all the dots, even though when you look closer you would notice small dots of paint with no rhyme or reason. But by looking at all the dots together, you get the full meaning of seeing all of them.
E
edwest211
Guest
An infinitely flexible storytelling device which I would not use to write science fiction.
E
edwest211
Guest
The same dot system is used for publishing. And each dot has to be the right size and in the right place to accurately produce an image. A dot registration error would be immediately obvious.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
I hold Revelation is correct. Science will catch up.
B
buffalo
Guest
Luke 3: 23 When he began, Jesus was about thirty years old, being the son, as it was thought, of Joseph son of Heli,
24 son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph,
25 son of Mattathias, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Esli, son of Naggai,
26 son of Maath, son of Mattathias, son of Semein, son of Josech, son of Joda,
27 son of Joanan, son of Rhesa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri,
28 son of Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of Elmadam, son of Er,
29 son of Jesus, son of Eliezer, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi,
30 son of Symeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonam, son of Eliakim,
31 son of Melea, son of Menna, son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David,
32 son of Jesse, son of Obed, son of Boaz, son of Sala, son of Nahshon,
33 son of Amminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni, son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah,
34 son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of Terah, son of Nahor,
35 son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg, son of Eber, son of Shelah,
36 son of Cainan, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech,
37 son of Methuselah, son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Cainan,
38 son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.
-------------Luke records the above.
The last line - Adam had no parents and was the son of God directly. No one in between.
“son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God”
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
It has been closed, but we are not all stumped. You can see my last posts there.
B
buffalo
Guest
Catholics do not use a literalistic approach to Scripture, rather what the author intended to convey. He conveyed six days. No one who reads Genesis without trying to uphold provisional science claims would read it any different.
He clarifies in each instance so there can be no doubt.
Evening came and morning came: the first day.
Evening came and morning came: the second day.
Evening came and morning came: the third day.
Evening came and morning came: the fourth day.
Evening came and morning came: the fifth day.
God saw all he had made, and indeed it was very good. Evening came and morning came: the sixth day.
It is very clear. It is as if he knew it would be questioned in the future,
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
1.Thus heaven and earth were completed with all their array.
2 On the seventh day God had completed the work he had been doing. He rested on the seventh day after all the work he had been doing.
3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on that day he rested after all his work of creating.
4 Such was the story of heaven and earth as they were created. At the time when Yahweh God made earth and heaven
2 On the seventh day God had completed the work he had been doing. He rested on the seventh day after all the work he had been doing.
3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on that day he rested after all his work of creating.
4 Such was the story of heaven and earth as they were created. At the time when Yahweh God made earth and heaven
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Hexaemeron signifies a term of six days, or, technically, the history of the six days’ work of creation, as contained in the first chapter of Genesis . The Hexaemeron in its technical sense – the Biblical Hexaemeron – is the subject of the present article. We shall consider: I. T EXT ; II. S OURCE ; III. M EANING .
www.catholic.org
Hexaemeron - Encyclopedia Volume - Catholic Encyclopedia - Catholic Online
Hexaemeron signifies a term of six days, or, technically, the history of the six days' work of creation, as contained in the first chapter of Genesis . The Hexaemeron in its technical sense -- the Biblical Hexaemeron -- is the subject of the present article. We shall consider: I. T EXT ; II. ...
www.catholic.org
A
Aloysium
Guest
Maybe a beach is a beach and the grains of sand exist in themselves once we isolate them from that whole.
This is the case at a quantum level. Bucky balls (buckminsterfullerene) is the largest particle that behaves that way (as a wave or particle depending on whether the apparatus isolates/observes it), but then its not clear how we might produce and measure a wave of beachness.
At any rate, what we do know is ourselves. And, as persons we exist as one whole being which is in relation to what is other to us. The Eucharist also is one - every part, the body and blood of Chirst, until we destroy it by isolating individual molecules.
So, who is to say there isn’t a beach, but only grains of sand? That of course is the materialist view.
When one examines the parts, one will miss the unity of the encompassing system, which is as or more real, but through a process of analysis has been decomposed.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
I think you’re catching on to what is the theory of evolution as it pertains to the growth in complexity of life that is observed in the present and in the fossil record, stretching from the existence of hydrogen to that of organic molecules, on to single cell organisms, plants, fungi, animals and human beings. There is no evidence whatsoever that matter arranged itself to produce all this. What we do have is existing matter, organised in such a fashion as to maintain the diversity. Somehow it was ordered. Random mutations and natural selection exist, but they are destructive influences. It less likely that they brought about the different levels of creation than it is that angels lift a plane. Angels as God’s messangers, may be the means by which events occur within creation, from which we derive the laws of nature.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
I believe we are individually and collectively on a journey along the Way that is Jesus Christ. In addition to becoming more loving persons, growing within us are the gifts of the Holy Spirit which include wisdom, understanding, counsel, and knowledge. I expect to know exactly what it is that will quench that thirst. And, it will have been obvious all the time.Aloysium:
Fair enough. However, as has been pointed out many times in this thread, Divine Revelation is unchanging. What ‘progress’ might we expect in terms of Revelation?Gorgias:
This goes both ways.
G
Glark
Guest
It also speaks to atheism - no life at all can exist without God.
Last edited:
- Status