D
drpmjhess
Guest
jcrichton;3484749 said:
- Status
M
mulligan59
Guest
But the heliocentric model isn’t “objective truth”. It is a model that man choses to believe out of his pride. I’ve already had my posts edited, and I have been warned by the moderator for "denigrating the beliefs of others. Yet I have been called backward, and insecure (by you) and a fool by drpmjhess. I guess all beliefs are toerated here but Catholic ones.
B
buffalo
Guest
Gee, I leave the thread for a few days and look what happens. 
The thread is to investigate deeper not rehashing the sam arguments.
The thread is to investigate deeper not rehashing the sam arguments.
M
mmortal03
Guest
The theory of evolution is “only” a scientific theory, yes, but I think your understanding of what the requirements are for something to “only” be a scientific theory is flawed. Scientific theories are not just something scientists just arbitrarily, nonsensically come up with over a beer with their buddies, nor are they based on scientists’ vivid imaginations or opinions. The theory of evolution specifically has tons of hard evidence to back it up, otherwise it couldn’t be a theory. It is one of the most solid “theories” biologists have.
In science, speculative or conjectural explanations are called hypotheses and well-tested explanations are called theories.
See these for some more food for thought:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism_versus_evolution#Theory_vs._fact
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_is_just_a_theory.2C_not_a_fact
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
M
mmortal03
Guest
Relativity has been tested time and time again, and deep space missions have had to deal with its ramifications to properly guide the probes. I don’t know where you got the idea that no “real” scientists “believe” in it, but it isn’t up for discussion or opinion. It is the way the universe works, to the best accuracy that we know.
No one is choosing these things out of pride. They are developing their models based on hard evidence. It isn’t an opinion type of thing.
Regarding the history of the Catholic view on evolution, check this out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church
B
buffalo
Guest
If you are observing and testing what you see in a tunnel that is all you will see. The tunnel is the limitations of science itself.
How can science unbind itself?
How can science unbind itself?
M
mmortal03
Guest
It can’t, in the sense that science could somehow measure something that is, by definition, immeasurable. Science never claims to have all the answers. It only measures what it can measure, and continues to refine itself. However, what science CAN see within that tunnel should not be denied as false just because some random individual thinks he can have an opinion on things.
If one thinks something exists outside of what science can measure, he or she is welcome to. But for individuals, who obviously have a limited perspective and understanding of how science really works, to try to categorize the mainstream findings of science as simply hoaxes, (remember, the science being done behind these has been produced by geniuses in their fields, and has been meticulously reviewed over and over again by other experts), is for these individuals to be naive.
For someone to think his or her Catholicism hangs in the balance of these issues, for someone to be a science denier like this, is just completely ludicrous, and spits in the face of the scientists who have produced the unbelievable reality of a technological society that we have today, for example, even just the mediums that allow us to type these messages on this forum!
You don’t personally get to pick and choose what science you like and what science you don’t like, based on your own opinions. It doesn’t work that way. And if you are Catholic, there needn’t be any dilemma involved with that.
M
mulligan59
Guest
Your citations (links) are primarily semantical exercises having to do with how science defines it terms like “theory”. They point to no actual evidence for evolution, rather we are simply to accept it. They answer no objections. The one example given as a fact in favor of evolution, “fruit flies”, is interesting as in fact the fruit fly experiments have yielded nothing. Rather they tend to prove that favorable mutations are virtually nonexistent. How come even simple life cannot be created under laboratory conditions but we are to believe that it somehow happened spontaneously?
B
buffalo
Guest
Since our vision is limited as our reasoning how can we be sure we have the correct conclusion? Everyone that lives in the tunnel can arrive at the same conclusion. The issue is has science itself handcuffed its reasoning? I submit it has.
M
mulligan59
Guest
R
reggieM
Guest
I’ve noticed the name calling by the person who claims to be a “Catholic theologian”. If you call your brother a fool you will suffer the fire of hell – a Gospel verse any (except liberal) theologians will know. Matthew 5:22 “Whosoever shall say ‘You fool’, shall be in danger of hellfire.”
This corresponds with the surprising contempt the same person shows for other people, in this case, the poor:
One might expect liberal Catholics would have some solidarity with the poor, but abundant experience has shown me that they want to be considered sophisticated, posh, intellecuals – and they think their brand of Catholicism makes them better than everyone else – so it’s nothing for them to ridicule people who they think are inferior to them.
But again, another good example of liberal Catholic theology – it’s a system of thought that is fruitless and destructive, as any honest look at the Church today will show.
J
jcrichton
Guest
M
mulligan59
Guest
But again, another good example of liberal Catholic theology – it’s a system of thought that is fruitless and destructive, as any honest look at the Church today will show.
Well said. I just can’t understand why Catholics are so hostile to challenges to conventional beliefs, which are essentially hostile or at least opposed to God, especially evolution, which is far from proven, but rather by objective standards seems impossible. And without “evolution”, there can be no atheism. Evolution is man’s attempt to explain himself without need of God. Dawkins afterall is an evolutionist. But you are right, the fruits of liberal Catholicism (an oxymoron) is worse than nothing.
Well said. I just can’t understand why Catholics are so hostile to challenges to conventional beliefs, which are essentially hostile or at least opposed to God, especially evolution, which is far from proven, but rather by objective standards seems impossible. And without “evolution”, there can be no atheism. Evolution is man’s attempt to explain himself without need of God. Dawkins afterall is an evolutionist. But you are right, the fruits of liberal Catholicism (an oxymoron) is worse than nothing.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Does Mitchael appear in Jude? Do you have a verse?
D
drpmjhess
Guest
(1) Evolution is better substantiated than the theory of gravity.
(2) Atheism arose well before Darwin’s theory of evolution.
(3) Evolution is not “man’s attempt to explain himself without need of God.”
[/quote]
M
mmortal03
Guest
I don’t think you have the ability to validly argue that. You make a claim that humans’ vision and reasoning is limited (which could be the case, but there is no way of determining this). You, being human, with the same abilities as the rest of us, are submitting that you have esoteric knowledge or anecdotal evidence of something beyond what science can measure. Over/along/across what medium was this revealed to you?
M
mmortal03
Guest
I don’t think I recalled the right example. While I believe to have read discussions of the motion of deep space probes regarding relativity, what I could pull up at the moment is regarding tests of general relativity using deep space probes:
nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/abs/nature01997.html;jsessionid=A7BA895EF583689BB874CB6112750329
However, the point I was making wasn’t that I am an expert on the specificities of the physics involved, but that your claim that “real scientists” don’t “believe” in relativity anymore is completely absurd. First of all, you have to state which theory of relativity you are talking about. But no one is precluding the opportunity for general relativity to be proven false with good evidence. However, I don’t see how this has anything to do with your Catholicism.
You can believe what you want about Tom Van Flandern’s work. Like I said, no on i precluding the opportunity for general relativity, in part, to be proven false, with good evidence. It isn’t science that is being dogmatic about it, based on opinions. It isn’t an opinion kind of thing. The reason his work has been unpopular has nothing to do with there being some kind of massive conspiracy amongst the scientific community, with scientists out to get him, or something.
Here is a link to a story covering the controversy behind the findings discussed at the link you posted above: freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0447700729.htm
These alternative theory stories that come out are often interesting to read, but their legitimacy in science will ultimately be held to whether they can be legitimately be tested.
But anyway, I fail to see how any of this is relevant to your beliefs regarding Catholicism.
What are these “honest looks” and “objective standards” that you speak of? This stuff has nothing to do with whether one is a liberal Catholic or not. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that evolution has occurred. The model of how it has occurred is then what the theories discuss. The current Darwinian theory of evolution best describes the evidence of what has occurred. It has held time and time again.
Finally, the theory of evolution doesn’t even deal with how life initially got going on Earth. It deals with what scientists, based on the evidence, think happened after life got started here. Therefore, the theory of evolution and there existing a god who created the universe and man are not mutually exclusive.
M
mulligan59
Guest
I realize I have made some big leaps from here to there perhaps without drawing in the line between all of the dots. “No real scientist” was hyperbolic. Let’s say “many” don’t instead of “none do”. The link to belief in Catholicism is only peripheral, as astrologial distances (how far away things are) and modern cosmology is related both to heliocentrism and evolution. Relativity in my understanding, and my understanding is drawn largely from the work of Sungenis, was a response to the Michaelson Morley experiments which failed to detect the earth’s rotation but should have (if it were actually moving). The premise (and I think I refer to “general” relativity here) is basically “O well, you really can’t tell, but it really doesn;t matter.” It’s like is the car really moving or are those telephone poles flying past you. I have challenged athiests with PHDs in physics and they confirmed the fact that the model can be made to work either way (moving earth or moving universe) and “relativity” takes away the need (or the ability) to prove one or the other. It is related to evolution because ultimately a very old universe is needed to make the theory remotely plausible. Assumptions about the speed of light are critical to measuring distance and age in the expanding universe model. But these assumptions are breaking down as we look further and further into space. Understand that so much of what is considered settled science today are assumptions built on top of assumptions. Mathematically, anything can be modeled. It doesn’t make it true.
B
buffalo
Guest
God is extradimensional, that we know.
M
mulligan59
Guest
We know that our reason is limited, or more precisely our “intellect is clouded” because the Church has taught it and it is due to sin.
- Status