EVOLUTION: what about this

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rogerteder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dchsknight said:
Yes you can not pick and choose what parts of the bible are true and aren’t, because that is Protestant, you also can not go into the bible like blind idiot and assume all of it is literal, that is stupidity.
Click to expand...
And yet, you yourself interpret Genesis 1 as a literal seven day creation. You seem to pick and choose what to interpret literally, and what to interpret symbolically.
 
StAnastasia said:
Have any scientists proposed creating these things?
Click to expand...
They have theories about the existence of these things, but nobody has come up with the actual “thing” yet. So in terms of “do they actually exist”, nobody knows. But nonetheless, the scientists are sure that they exist.
 
edwest2 said:
The only thing that makes me wonder is the constant “just say yes to evolution” mantra around here. Ed
Click to expand...
So…Ed…eh…i was wondering…eh…When are you gonna be and Evolutionist!!!:rolleyes: I can’t Wait.

Just do it, Just say yes.:cool:

Yec-izm is sooooooooooooooooooooo yesterday man.
 
StAnastasia said:
And yet, you yourself interpret Genesis 1 as a literal seven day creation. You seem to pick and choose what to interpret literally, and what to interpret symbolically.
Click to expand...
We have the constant understanding and guidance of the Magisterium to tell us what is what.
 
ricmat said:
They have theories about the existence of these things, but nobody has come up with the actual “thing” yet. So in terms of “do they actually exist”, nobody knows. But nonetheless, the scientists are sure that they exist.
Click to expand...
Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. The scientific definition of the word “theory” is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, “theory” can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions. It is intellectually dishonest to withhold personal assent of a scientific theory, given our current understanding of our universe.
 
wasmit said:
Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. The scientific definition of the word “theory” is different from the colloquial sense of the word… It is intellectually dishonest to withhold personal assent of a scientific theory, given our current understanding of our universe.
Click to expand...
But if I throw a tantrum loud enough, perhaps I can persuade a school board to admit that since evolution is only a theory, taxpayer-funded schools should allow the exploration of other theories in the science classroom as well, such as creation by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
But if I throw a tantrum loud enough, perhaps I can persuade a school board to admit that since evolution is only a theory, taxpayer-funded schools should allow the exploration of other theories in the science classroom as well, such as creation by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Right - those belong in philosophy class along with evolutionism.

In science class let’s stick to empirical science.
 
buffalo said:
Right - those belong in philosophy class along with evolutionism.

In science class let’s stick to empirical science.
Click to expand...
empirical science - science that relies on or is derived from observation or experiment.

evolution falls under the definition of (empirical science), as it has been derived from observation and expirement.

So, are you saying that evolution should be taught in philosophy class and science class?
 
buffalo said:
Right - those belong in philosophy class along with evolutionism. In science class let’s stick to empirical science.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute – a hexaemeral creation a la Genesis is at least as testable as creation by the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
 
wasmit said:
empirical science - science that relies on or is derived from observation or experiment.

evolution falls under the definition of (empirical science), as it has been derived from observation and expirement.

So, are you saying that evolution should be taught in philosophy class and science class?
Click to expand...
Empirical science is testable, repeatable and predictable.
 
wasmit said:
Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. The scientific definition of the word “theory” is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, “theory” can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions.
Click to expand...
I agree with you 100% on your above statement. Evolution predicts that primitive one-celled creatures evolved into man. I haven’t seen anyone test that from one end to the other yet.

Read the science journals. Read old science books. Read the posts on this forum. Theories are stated as Fact. Truth. The universe is “steady state”, there was no big bang - that’s a fact according to old science books (mid 1900’s). Of course, now it is a fact that there was a big bang. Currently evolution is a Fact. Truth. What will be a Fact tomorrow? The most basic prediction of the theories of e.g. dark matter / energy & black holes is that they exist “out there someplace.” But none have ever been observed in a controlled environment. Just like “muck to man” has not been observed in a controlled environment.
wasmit said:
It is intellectually dishonest to withhold personal assent of a scientific theory, given our current understanding of our universe.
Click to expand...
I just read your statement above 5 times to be sure you didn’t accidentally say something vague that could be interpreted to have a different meaning than you intended. Incredibly, it appears that you really meant to say it.

Your statement implies that science has reached a dead end. We know everything, so there can be no disagreement. That scientists cannot disagree with current theories. That’s bad news for scientists because they can now all be fired 😦

We “know” far less than we don’t know. Everybody talks about gravity being the gold standard of scientific knowability. So tell me, what consensus have scientists come up with as the underlying cause of gravity? Yes, it’s a “property of matter”, but is that the best you can do? Certainly all scientists must agree or some of them are being intellectually dishonest, according to you. While we’re at it, at what speed do gravitational effects spread through the cosmos? That’s pretty basic. Tell me the answer. Give me the answer that all scientists agree to.
 
ricmat said:
I agree with you 100% on your above statement. Evolution predicts that primitive one-celled creatures evolved into man. I haven’t seen anyone test that from one end to the other yet.

Read the science journals. Read old science books. Read the posts on this forum. Theories are stated as Fact. Truth. The universe is “steady state”, there was no big bang - that’s a fact according to old science books (mid 1900’s). Of course, now it is a fact that there was a big bang. Currently evolution is a Fact. Truth. What will be a Fact tomorrow? The most basic prediction of the theories of e.g. dark matter / energy & black holes is that they exist “out there someplace.” But none have ever been observed in a controlled environment. Just like “muck to man” has not been observed in a controlled environment.

I just read your statement above 5 times to be sure you didn’t accidentally say something vague that be interpreted to have a different meaning than you intended. Incredibly, it appears that you really meant to say it.

Your statement implies that science has reached a dead end. We know everything, so there can be no disagreement. That scientists cannot disagree with current theories. That’s bad news for scientists because they can now all be fired 😦

We “know” far less than we don’t know. Everybody talks about gravity being the gold standard of scientific knowability. So tell me, what consensus have scientists come up with as the underlying cause of gravity? Yes, it’s a “property of matter”, but is that the best you can do? Certainly all scientists must agree or some of them are being intellectually dishonest, according to you. While we’re at it, at what speed do gravitational effects spread through the cosmos? That’s pretty basic. Tell me the answer. Give me the answer that all scientists agree to.
Click to expand...
Like this question - The sun has been shining a long time emitting photons upon photons. Where did they all go?
 
ricmat said:
I agree with you 100% on your above statement. Evolution predicts that primitive one-celled creatures evolved into man. I haven’t seen anyone test that from one end to the other yet.

Read the science journals. Read old science books. Read the posts on this forum. Theories are stated as Fact. Truth. The universe is “steady state”, there was no big bang - that’s a fact according to old science books (mid 1900’s). Of course, now it is a fact that there was a big bang. Currently evolution is a Fact. Truth. What will be a Fact tomorrow? The most basic prediction of the theories of e.g. dark matter / energy & black holes is that they exist “out there someplace.” But none have ever been observed in a controlled environment. Just like “muck to man” has not been observed in a controlled environment.
Click to expand...
It seems as if you have terminology mixed up.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
 
MindOverMatter said:
So…Ed…eh…i was wondering…eh…When are you gonna be and Evolutionist!!!:rolleyes: I can’t Wait.

Just do it, Just say yes.:cool:

Yec-izm is sooooooooooooooooooooo yesterday man.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, I am not a YEC. I can only trust what the Catholic Church has to say about this subject.

Peace,
Ed
 
wasmit said:
Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. The scientific definition of the word “theory” is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, “theory” can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions. It is intellectually dishonest to withhold personal assent of a scientific theory, given our current understanding of our universe.
Click to expand...
“intellectually dishonest”? The human mind is limited and the Church has a deposit of faith that provides us with what we also need to know. “our current understanding” may be overthrown a few months from now when we’re even more modern 🙂

Peace,
Ed
 
StAnastasia said:
But if I throw a tantrum loud enough, perhaps I can persuade a school board to admit that since evolution is only a theory, taxpayer-funded schools should allow the exploration of other theories in the science classroom as well, such as creation by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
The FSM was created by secularists. And now we’re back to the heart of the matter: power and control. It is not a Christian principle to sneak, or force, God into any institution. Those who claim to be doing right by doing things wrong, and by subterfuge, are by definition, not being open and honest.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Gravity tells a person nothing about his origin, evolution claims to do so.Peace,Ed
Click to expand...
Evolution is an explanation of biological diversity, just as gravity is an explanation of why things fall down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top