Can you elaborate on this please?
- Status
Well then please explain to me the truth in this. This whole thread seems to be about debunking what science knows to be true with no evidence at all.I’m sorry friend but you are living in a state of absolute denial. Christ did not teach mythology nor did the doctors of the church for almost 2000 years. Adam and Peter have to be wondering where you came from. You give yourself away when you start using the “C” word, a last resort for those who can not tolerate “Truth in Science.”
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Science, philosophy, and religion, are all children of “abstract thought” (I’d say “education” but that’s too loaded a word) more or less applied to something useful.
But the children wanted to specialize, so they made up the names, each kid claimed which team to identify with with only a few cliches and no well defined boundaries, and then they turned against each other and had at it. Rather than working together to find the Truth they all seek, they are bent on pride to uphold the group name over another group name. Such is life.
So it isn’t about what is Truth, it’s about whether your group can beat my group.
This, too, shall pass.
Alan
T
tonyrey
Guest
You’ve never tangibly felt the presence of God?
P
Philipp
Guest
I quote the abstract of the paper published in Italy as well as Germany. Here is the abstract and again the link. I pray that it will you and others understand that it is all comig together. sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm
RECENT C-14 DATING OF FOSSILS INCLUDING DINOSAUR BONE COLLAGEN. Are the results a confirmation of rapid formation of the geologic column as modern sedimentology studies have predicted?
AUTHORS: Josef Holzschuh, Jean de Pontcharra, Hugh Miller
ABSTRACT: The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science. Its geologic location was the Hell Creek Formation in the State of Montana, United States of America. When it was learned in 2005that Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered by the Glendive (MT) Dinosaur & Fossil Museum, Hugh Miller asked and received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for C-14 testing of any bone collagen that might be extracted. Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 ± 380 radiocarbon years (RC) for the Triceratops and 23,170 ±170 RC years for the Hadrosaur were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS). Total organic carbon and/or dinosaur bone bio-apatite was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna.
Key Words
Radiocarbon dating, dinosaur, bone collagen, organic carbon, bone bio-apatite, fossil wood, amber, megafauna
There are 70 or 80 references as well in this 20 or so page technical paper. You see AdamPeter many scientists are starting to think “outside the box.” You might also check out the book “Genetic Entropy” The mystery of the Genome by Dr. J. C. Sanford a professor at Cornell University. It is in agreement with the theory that God used DNA to create all the zillians of species. Or as one CA poster named Buffalo suggested as a reasonable hypothesis:
IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. Buffalo
I’m sorry you have such a narrow view of science that you believe it’s impossible for them to work together.Science, philosophy, and religion, are all children of “abstract thought” (I’d say “education” but that’s too loaded a word) more or less applied to something useful.
But the children wanted to specialize, so they made up the names, each kid claimed which team to identify with with only a few cliches and no well defined boundaries, and then they turned against each other and had at it. Rather than working together to find the Truth they all seek, they are bent on pride to uphold the group name over another group name. Such is life.
So it isn’t about what is Truth, it’s about whether your group can beat my group.
This, too, shall pass.
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Quite the contrary. There is an element of science and philosophy in every serious thought endeavor. Neither can do without the other, any more than a keyboard and monitor are different but they work together.
The ones who are defining “science” narrowly are the ones who insist on it being physical, experimentally proven, etc. Science goes for centuries at a time on theories that turn out to be incomplete, or even just plain wrong. That’s because not everything in science is neat and tidy in a little packet. And a real scientists knows that. It isn’t a problem, it’s just part of the process of always having discovery yet to be made.
Also a “real” scientist will not say to the philosopher “I don’t need you” for that is like chopping off his own feet. The philosophers are the ones who originally brought the questions the science investigates.
So I ask you, if you still think I have a narrow view of science, what am I not giving science credit for that it deserves?
Other than claiming that the participants in an argument over whether science is better than philosophy or religion are fighting a stupid battle. That those who argue, “my thoughts are better than your thoughts,” are fools. They speak but they do not listen. They talk but they cannot hear. They spew but they don’t learn like they could if they joined forces with their team members rather than considering them competitors and expending everyone’s energy fighting them.
Of course, science as practiced today is mostly all but pure. It is funded by somebody, because scientists have to eat, too. And typically those paying for the studies have an interest in the outcome. So those outcomes that are in line with desires get widely publicized, the rest kept hush. Try to tell me I’m wrong on this; what percentage of science is funded by truly unbiased sources? Luckily, with peer review and Internet and all, at least different points of view can be more easily found and compared.
Alan
G
Gaber
Guest
This is correct. Science, religion, atheism, and whatever, are all struggling with each other on the same floor or Ground. What none of them have done is made a proper study of that Ground such that would reveal that actual and real connection between them all, and which would give each its own and connected power and rightful authority. Till that happens we will have such lovely experiences as we so on these fora.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Those who do try to find that common ground are typically considered heretics, new agers, or worse. For example, Deepak Chopra speaks of this; he is from a science background but he speaks more profoundly for unity – of all sorts within the human race – than most Christians I know. The Catholic monks I know of who reach for and even find unity among different religions are severely treated by those who have group identification issues (“my religion [or subdivision thereof] is right, yours is dangerous”), are regarded as heretical or new age or whatever adjective is the going one of the moment. Einstein himself spoke of the existence of spirit, and spoke that science without religion is incomplete, but do scientists listen to him? A few do; the rest are undeterred and continue to say that science is in opposition to religion. Excuse me; I meant that religion is in opposition to science.
Really it’s kind of comical. Everybody gets into a box, then works like mad to conform to the thinking inside that box, and to become very afraid or angry at any thoughts outside that box. We fire missiles at the other boxes – some at science, some at math and literature, some at other religions – “science” and “atheism” being but two of them.
It reminds me of my fraternity. A few of us would sneak over and join parties at Lambda Chi Alpha, but when we were at our own houses we were sworn enemies. On July 4 we would all go back to Terre Haute and get in groups and fire Roman Candles at each other across the parking lot. It was great fun and the injuries weren’t serious.
Problem is I’m afraid most of us firing missiles at the other boxes aren’t doing it for fun; they’re somehow doing it for fear of their souls. At least I hope fear is involved; logic couldn’t get that contorted and self-limiting without something like fear or just plain brainwashing involved.
Here’s what I think about Group Identity…
Who has heard of the “classic” experiment in groupthink, the Asch experiment?
Here’s a more lighthearted version of the same thing, on Candid Camera, involving an elevator.
When I see people arguing from positions of group identity and apparently little more, it used to horrify and terrify me, but now when I see these things I often get a chuckle.
Alan
I
inocente
Guest
Discussing evolution is banned, could you guys please respect the stickies and not derail the thread. Thank you kindly.
I
inocente
Guest
Like AG I’ve a habit of always looking for peer-reviewed papers. Didn’t spot any, but did find they’re involved in a “self-improvement” scheme, so I guess the video is back-story for a scam to part new agers from their money.
I
inocente
Guest
Then where is the decision made, how it is transferred to the brain, and why do you think the brain goes to all the trouble of trying to predict the decision rather than just wait?
I’m told that a disembodied soul is impossible according to the CCC (it says the soul is the form of the body), but it seems a lot of Catholics ignore that and go for Descartes’ ghost in a machine instead. How this disembodied soul is supposed to communicate with the brain/body, let alone how it finds and senses which brain to attach to shall forever remain unknown, or at least whenever I’ve asked people go really quiet.
I
inocente
Guest
You’ve never palpably felt the presence of God?
Correct. All the evidence has pointed that way for several generations. I’m surprised that anyone can believe otherwise but if there’s a flat earth society then …
What loses me is why people do it, it seems like a college version of Twister where the winner is the one who convinces everyone else to believe in the most convoluted “reality” possible (for once I’m not being sarcastic, just really can’t see why people hold the belief).
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I like your analogy to Twister.You’ve never palpably felt the presence of God?
Correct. All the evidence has pointed that way for several generations. I’m surprised that anyone can believe otherwise but if there’s a flat earth society then …
What loses me is why people do it, it seems like a college version of Twister where the winner is the one who convinces everyone else to believe in the most convoluted “reality” possible (for once I’m not being sarcastic, just really can’t see why people hold the belief).
But “originate” is a pretty strong term. To me, that includes any sort of external triggers?
P
Philipp
Guest
Why should mentioning the guru of fairy tales bring down the house? Pope Benedict reminds us that this type of illogical secular reasoning is not catholic - is NOT reality.Discussing evolution is banned, could you guys please respect the stickies and not derail the thread. Thank you kindly.
In my way of “thinking” firm and reproducible scientific observations, lab and field research that supports what Christ, His apostles and the church doctors have taught from Genesis on is reality. In other words when “It all comes together” that is reality. Thus science by itself can NOT REALLY explain Reality. “Thinking outside the box” is the only way to bring it all together.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
It may at least bring down the discussion, if house rules are not honored.
Discussing evolution is banned, could you guys please respect the stickies and not derail the thread. Thank you kindly.
This is neither the rules of inocente or myself.
Reference: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=408684
P
Philipp
Guest
I will continue to comply if I can find some discussions of science and reality by such church doctors as St Thomas Aquinas and St. Lawrence of Brindisi. I judge that their astute judgements are still welcome, right?
I
inocente
Guest
Well that’s mighty dinkum of you.
Don’t know. There seem to be many forms of the science-can-never-explain-thoughts argument, and here’s my take, although what’s being suggested on this thread may be very different:
The self, the “I”, exists in a parallel reality outside the material world. Triggers from the material world result in a transmission to “I” in the parallel world, which thinks out a decision and sends it back to the material world. These processes are mediated by the brain, which cannot think and is basically a router. The parallel reality is unfettered by any form of mechanism but the “I” somehow manages to be ordered, and this somehow explains free-will. The two worlds occupy the same space-time, but other physical phenomena only exist on the material side.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Make of it what you will… Interpret for yourself; you’re on your own.I will continue to comply if I can find some discussions of science and reality by such church doctors as St Thomas Aquinas and St. Lawrence of Brindisi. I judge that their astute judgements are still welcome, right?
http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-happy-smileys-295.gif
T
tonyrey
Guest
Certainly not in the scientific sense of term - which is the issue on this thread.
- The assumption that all thoughts originate in the nervous system implies that God’s thoughts also originate in a nervous system - given that we are made in God’s image.
- It also implies that we can never control our thoughts because all brain activity has physical causes - according to science.
- It therefore disposes of the possibility that we have free will, the ability to think for ourselves, make our own decisions or have any moral responsibility.
- In effect it reduces persons to biological machines…
.
- Status