U
Uriel1
Guest
Exactly as the OP posits; Darwin’s T of E is not scientific, and you have put it so well @o_mlly
Last edited:
- Status
M
Metis1
Guest
Not true as it’s a matter of interpretation.
B
Bradskii
Guest
First up, the claim that faith never contradicts science (and visa versa) is nonsense. In the first instance, faith is something personal and will vary from person to person. So considering some of the fundamentalist beliefs of various of those posting in these type of threads, their faith - that Adam was literally formed from dust, for example, contradicts basic scientific knowledge of man's beginning. And the facts of man's origen contradicts their faith.
Secondly, science is NOT the belief in things seen. That's so obviously correct that I won't waste my time giving examples.
Thirdly, it is one of the hallmarks of the scientific endeavour for scientists to intentionally make claims that are 'beyond their data'. That is the very essence of a theory: To take the information you have and (as well as proposing a means by which the data is comprehensible) to formulate it in such a way as to say: 'If A and B are valid, then C', where C may be unseen, or even unknown.
To take Darwin as an example, he knew there was some way that favourable traits were being passed down through generations of organisms in such as way as to allow the survival of those best fitted to the environment. Genes weren't part of his data but he could still formulate a theory allowing for them without them being seen or even k own about. Was he therefore making a metaphysical claim?
And using Einstein as another, the maths for his theory of general relativity didn't balance because he was working on the assumption of a static universe. So he included the cosmological constant which allowed the maths to work and the theory to stand. As it turns out, that cosmological constant which he had to include turns out to be something that not only did he not see or have any data on, but couldn't envisagae the data in the first instance. It turns out to be Dark Matter. Do we slide Einstein and his theories into the pantheon of metaphysical philosophers?
Nonsense.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Wrong. The Catholic faith is communal, not personal.
Wrong. In error, apparently you equate the probability of the claims in the empirical sciences with the claims of the historical sciences.
Wrong. In your example, for “C” (“unseen” and “unknown” – what does that mean?) to have substantial truth value the syllogism must not exclude the middle. Show us your evolutionary “A”, “B” and “C” and we will show you multiple middles.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Do you have faith that Adam was made from dust? Some on this forum do. Plus other examples too numerous to mention.
Did someone see the sun being formed? No? So we’ll exclude it’s creation from science as science is a belief in things seen. Plus other examples etc.
Advantageous traits which aid survival (A) are past on to future generations thus maintaining the species (B) by some unknown and unseen process ( C). Darwin didn’t know what C was but that didn’t prevent him from realising it existed and making it part of his theory.
Likewise Einstein didn’t know and hadn’t seen anything of dark matter but included a variable in his theory which allowed for it.
This is basic science. Why are you trying to dispute it? It appears to be argument for argument’s sake.
Did someone see the sun being formed? No? So we’ll exclude it’s creation from science as science is a belief in things seen. Plus other examples etc.
Advantageous traits which aid survival (A) are past on to future generations thus maintaining the species (B) by some unknown and unseen process ( C). Darwin didn’t know what C was but that didn’t prevent him from realising it existed and making it part of his theory.
Likewise Einstein didn’t know and hadn’t seen anything of dark matter but included a variable in his theory which allowed for it.
This is basic science. Why are you trying to dispute it? It appears to be argument for argument’s sake.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Oh, please stop.
E
edwest211
Guest
I follow the Church’s interpretation.
E
edwest211
Guest
Your math-fu is impressive. The speed of light through space is problematic. Gravitational lensing shows that photons can be influenced. Also, light is passing through hydrogen atoms but not at the speed of light. Every particle collision will slow or dissipate the photons as they travel from point A to earth.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Didn’t you say that you studied science in your spare time? Seems there’s not much spare time in the Ed household.
Photons can be influenced? As in bending light? Does that mean they slow down? Nah, of course it doesn’t mean that. But I bet you thought it did.
But you can slow them down? Well, here’s a trick for you. Close your eyes. Hey, you didn’t just slow those pesky photons down reaching your retina, you stopped them completely!
Back to study, Ed.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Trying to pull a “rossum” on us? The topic is not “bible” or “evolution” but the actual science underpinning the theories of evolution.
It must be well into “happy hour” down under because the above is nonsense. By the way, the theory is the “origin” not the “sustaining” of species. Try again.
M
Metis1
Guest
It’s “interpretations”.
Secondly, on scientific matters I’ll follow science, not religion.
E
edwest211
Guest
I’ll follow what the Church has to say about science, since science does not have all the necessary information.
M
Metis1
Guest
And how did that work out for Galileo?
E
edwest211
Guest
L
LateCatholic
Guest
It is ridiculous that with over thousands of pieces of evidence, validation across EVERY scientific discipline, years of tests, predictions that never prove to be false, people STILL don’t believe in evolution. It is stunning how religion can pollute minds. You bring up two silly frauds, one of which is only partly false, the second of which was uncovered and refuted as well.
Do I get to claim Christianity is false because of the Shroud of Turin, which is known to be a fake from medieval times? Or the fake discoveries of Goliath? Or all the artifacts of the cross that if added together weigh more than an entire tree? Or the laughable Noah’s arc? Come on. Is this even a serious argument? What about all the miracles that have been shown as fakes, like the crying statue of Mary in India that was shown to be sewage dripping from pipes above? Do I get to claim Christianity is false because of that?
Sublime. You clearly have no intellectual integrity if you make such a claim and don’t care to learn the truth one way or the other.
L
LateCatholic
Guest
What??? Galileo was placed under house arrest for the last 9 years of his life. Pope John Paul II in 1992 even formally apologized for it. And where’s the article explaining Bruno???
Wow. Try this instead:
http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.co...ientists-executed-by-the-catholic-church.html
or, regarding Galileo, #6 in this list:
Top 10 Shameful Moments in Catholic History - Listverse
This list is not a denunciation of Roman Catholicism which dates back to Christ Himself. The Church today is a very honorable institution. But there are a few moments in its history when it did not live up to its own high moral standards. This list is constitutes an honest unflinching look at...
listverse.com
and lastly, just for fun:
List of people burned as heretics - Wikipedia
You can say thatthe Church is finally, now, open to science. That’s great. But don’t pretend we don;t have a disgusting, sordid, and embarrassing history.
L
LateCatholic
Guest
What, exactly, is the “problem”?
Einstein showed us this.
Provide reference please. Light doesn’t “slow down” when it comes into ‘contact’ with other atoms. Besides, your whole point is moot because C is the speed of light in a vacuum. As soon as you influence it other scientific laws come into play.
It isn’t even clear what you are trying to prove here. So, some scientists think that C may be slightly faster or slow in the distant past or the distant future. Therefore, evolution is false? I mean, please connect those dots for me.
B
buffalo
Guest
101 Questions and Answers on the Crusades and the Inquisition: Disputed Questions
https://www.amazon.com/101-Questions-Answers-Crusades-Inquisition/dp/0809148048
U
Uriel1
Guest
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
I’ll gladly stick to evolutionary science. But if you state that science does not contradict some people’s faith and visa versa then I am obliged to give examples to prove you wrong. What on earth are those arguing against evolution (including yourself) doing it for? It’s because it contradicts aspects of your faith. It’s not credible that you could deny this.Bradskii:
Trying to pull a “rossum” on us? The topic is not “bible” or “evolution” but the actual science underpinning the theories of evolution.
It must be well into “happy hour” down under because the above is nonsense. By the way, the theory is the “origin” not the “sustaining” of species. Try again.
And if you claim that science is just about that which can be seen, then I am obliged to point out as many examples as you will need to show that you are emphatically wrong.
And if what Darwin surmised as I indicated is nonsense then you are free to point that out at your leisure. Perhaps by defining some other method whereby traits are passed on from generation to generation which no-one has yet discovered (maybe check on Lamarkism - which isn’t it, but you’ll increase your knowledge base).
And I didn’t say sustaining. I said maintaining. Which is what evolution does. It maintains a particular species. You can have evolution without speciation. It’s not a requirement of evolution. But you can’t have speciation without evolution. Darwin joined the dots to form his theory of why different species emerge.
He didn’t know what caused traits to be passed on and he didn’t know why some generations had more advantageous traits (more ‘unseen’ science). He just realised that something must have been doing it.
That’s what science does. It takes what it knows (what it can ‘see’) and works out what the unknowns are (what it can’t ‘see’). Clever, isn’t it…
And I’m currently ‘up top’ as opposed to down under. But as luck would have it, beer o’clock has just arrived.
Last edited:
- Status