S
StAnastasia
Guest
I don’t know. Why are you misconstruing them?
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Is it still true that the Son sits at the right had of the Father? Is that dogma? Or could He sometimes sit at the Father’s left hand?
E
edwest2
Guest
Bacteria can exchange bits of genetic material with other species of bacteria through lateral gene transfer. This ability is built in, preexisting. Bacteria were found in dirt in Canada that were already resistant to natural and synthetic anti-bacterial agents. The article notes another strategy used by bacteria to de-toxify an antibacterial. Now, how is this possible?
sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/02/22/life/soil.grows.drug.resistant.bacteria.html
Peace,
Ed
R
reggieM
Guest
For a guy who likes to parse sentences, mock literalism and correct grammar and spelling in order to dodge the uncomfortable truths about his own heterodoxy – I can explain that nowhere does it state that the Son sits at the right had.
That gives us a fairly good view on the kind of theological precision you’re comfortable with.
E
edwest2
Guest
What is going on here mirrors what is going on in the media in general. From the Catholic perspective, there is the Truth and the world. The world hates the truth. Here, those who seek to distort the truth, raise the signal to noise ratio so that their noise, they hope, will drown out the signal. The signal, of course, is actual, true Catholic teaching.Awesome reply.
I had a private message from a CAF member who was concerned that with so many posts about science and so much thinking from a naturalist-materialist perspective, are we really being formed more like Christ every day? Or are we becoming more materialistic (and losing faith)?
Science is a great gift that God has given us all, but like anything, it can be abused and exaggerated. For many, it is a substitution for faith.
“We believe …” That means, that even when we’re confounded by various things, we have faith that God will reveal His truth (He will reveal Himself to us). When we encounter various mysteries of God’s universe, that is not a bad thing.
Rash conclusions about how “the Church must change dogmas” will end up in foolishness. The Marxists of a prior generation said the same thing (as have heretics since the apostolic age) and God humiliated every one of them in time.
Peace,
Ed
S
StAnastasia
Guest
“… the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father”
newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Billions of years of evolution give good time to build in resistance.
E
edwest2
Guest
Resistance to what? Synthetic antibiotics? Time to stop believing that with evolution all things are possible.
Peace,
Ed
R
reggieM
Guest
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Not all things are possible with evolution.
B
buffalo
Guest
No - the extraordinary capabilities of the DNA code make it so.
Time to brush up:
How Scientific Evidence is Changing the Tide of the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate
S
StAnastasia
Guest
The kind of brush you use on porcelain. This is just an ID rant:
“The purpose of this article is to illuminate some of these discoveries and give hope to the ID community that steady, patient defense of our position will eventually win the war.”
It’s not gonna happen in your lifetime.
H
hecd2
Guest
That’s true.
Built in? Pre-existing? Pre-existing what?
They evolved the resistance strategies through exposure to antibiotics produced by themselves and other bacteria in the soil as the authors carefully point out in the relevant article: D’Costa et al, Sampling the Antibiotic Resistome, *Science *311, 374 - 377 (2006):
“Microbial resistance to antibiotics currently spans all known classes of natural and synthetic compounds. It has not only hindered our treatment of infections but also dramatically reshaped drug discovery, yet its origins have not been systematically studied. Soil-dwelling bacteria produce and encounter a myriad of antibiotics, evolving corresponding sensing and evading strategies…Most clinically relevant antibiotics originate from soil-dwelling actinomycetes. Antibiotic producers harbor resistance elements for self-protection that are often clustered in antibiotic biosynthetic operons…The presence of antibiotics in the environment has promoted the acquisition or independent evolution of highly specific resistance elements in the absence of innate antibiotic production [such as vancomycin resistance in *Streptomyces coelicolor, Paenibacillus, and Rhodococcus]”
So it’s clear from this that pathogenic bacteria *can *acquire antibiotic resistance by lateral gene transfer from soil dwelling bacteria, but it’s also clear that those soil dwelling bacteria evolved the resistance strategies as a defence mechanism against antibiotics naturally occurring in the soil.
I bet that even though you’ve been corrected, you’'ll use this argument again, because you are not interested in truth but propaganda.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
S
StAnastasia
Guest
This is the third or fourth time I’ve seen Ed use this exact argument in a year. A subset of the Gish Gallop, this tactic sacrifices the virtue of honesty to the end of bolstering the anti-scientific argument.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Logically, there would be no way of keeping non-Christian, and anti-Christian, cosmologies out of the classroom. Such as Baal-worship. After all, the real reason for thunder is that Baal causes it, just as it is Baal who gives rain, makes calves fertile, and (who can deny this ?) causes tsunamis when fighting the god River. Christians will deny this, obviously, but without reason; for the evidence goes to show that their god is powerless: surely because Baal has defeated him.
If ships sink, Athirat of the Sea, the mother of the gods, has done this: only a materialist would believe that the loss of a ship has anything to do with the causes scientists give - if scientists were truly supernatural-minded, and believed in miracles, they would understand that ships are destroyed by the gods, and by nothing else.Earthquakes ? As everyone knows, the gods of Olympus defeated the Giants & heaped mountains on top of them - so it is silly to rely on seismographs when in Sicily: for the earthquakes there are caused by the Giant Enceladus when he moves. Earthqakes in Scandinavia & Iceland ? Loki has shifted on his bed when stung by the venom of the Midgard Serpent.
To explain scientific phenomena other than by strictly scientific methods would be an appalling step to take. It would also be atrocious as Christian theology. One expects Fundamentalists to come up with such nonsense - but not Catholics.
There are solid reasons for the change from mythological to scientific explanations. Apart from anything else, the mythology of the Bible does not fit a world far larger and older and more complex than any known to any of the Biblical authors. The story of the Flood is an obvious example. It is ignorant to treat the Genesis 1-2 as a description of the creation which is valid as science, if only because the authors were not concerned with the same issues, considered in the same way, as a palaeontologist today would be. The proper comparison of the Genesis texts is with
other creation texts, within or forth of the OT - not with the science of AD 2000 or so.
G
grannymh
Guest
…only if you really think that Baal and friends actually have some power over natural phenomena. Seems to me that the kids’ saying about “sticks and stones” would also apply to explanations which happen to be words like “names”. The idea that a supernatural explanation would have the power to change what is under a microscope is rather funny.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
The problem is one of method - no millions of votes ortherwise can alter the fact that scientific research operates by methods which are proper to what it is - IOW, that are proper to scientific research. The appropriateness of a method of study or research is based on the character of what is studied; it is dependent on what a sort of thing the thing studied is. IOW, appropriateness of method is based on metaphysical realism; it is called for by the nature of the object of study; rather than imposed upon the object of study without regard for what is being studied.
Theology’s methods are not appropriate methods for scientific study - and without a method, and an appropriate one at that, study of any subject is impossible. It’s inappropriate because the proper object of theology is different from the objects proper to the physical sciences; to study chemistry as though it were formally a part of ecclesiology would be absurd, and useless; chemistry must be studied by means appropriate to its nature; which excludes treating it as a part of theology. The place for Bible study or offering Mass is not a laboratory; there are other, more appropriate, places & occasions for those activities.
R
rossum
Guest
Mutations are random so there is a chance that a random mutation will give resistance to an antibiotic that has not yet been developed. In the absence of that antibiotic the mutation will probably be deleterious or possibly neutral. In the presence of that antibiotic the mutation will be beneficial. This has been known since the Luria-Delbrück experiment in 1943. Your creationist sources are not up with the latest research.
Nobody with any sense believes that. Evolution cannot do everything, which is why it is falsifiable. It is ID, in its current form, which says all things are possible and so is unfalsifiable.
rossum
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Modernism subscribes to an empirical absolute of objectivism, and it is this that post-modernism refutes. There are different kinds of relativism, however, and some relativisms pop up in the Bible, if you’ll notice… and is practiced by the Church!
Post-modernism, I repeat, is a rejection of modernism in many ways
But I see your point. Post-modernism points at an absolute of relativism (ironically in itself), but then you don’t have to adhere to all of it to appreciate the application of some of it, do you?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
There is no way of excluding those possibilities - science can’t, precisely because it is not the same thing as religion. Can you prove, by experiment, that they don’t have such power ? Once religious faith is admitted as an appropriate tool for scientific research, it becomes impossible to exclude any religion - so all become admissible. Unless of course one is to exclude Baal-worshippers, etc., from engaging in scientific study - but on what grounds ?
If a scientist wishes to adore god Baal, there is nothing to prevent him so doing - but Baal-worship is not a sound method for scientific research. And neither is adoration of the Deity of Christians. Which is why doctors prescribe pills for epilepsy, rather than praying and fasting for their patients. For epilepsy, like thunder, earthquakes, and drought, has natural causes which can profitably, appropriately, and informatively be studied by scientific methods. Such methods are valuable because they study what can be controlled and compared & analysed & discussed with one’s peers - tsunamis can be compared and analysed, because they are accessible in that very way. Which is not true of explanation by divine action - Baal & Zeus & Jehovah can all be credited with causing thunder, because no one has ever seen them at work directly. Baal cannot be photographed. Poseidon cannot be interviewed. But the pathology of a form of epilepsy, or of cancer, or of other ills, can be studied in ways such as these.Seems to me that the kids’ saying about “sticks and stones” would also apply to explanations which happen to be words like “names”. The idea that a supernatural explanation would have the power to change what is under a microscope is rather funny.
- Status