B
buffalo
Guest
Again, you consistently show contempt. Perhaps you can try structured arguments.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Please share with us you view of God.
M
mpartyka
Guest
O
Orogeny
Guest
Come on, buffalo, you are better than that. You asked me to read the article and I did. Every bit of it. HE is the one who addresses science. HE is the one who either doesn’t understand the second law of thermodynamics or, if he does, is lying. That is absolutely relevant to EVERYTHING else he writes.
He has the same problem Sungenis has. He might be right about some things, but his obvious lack of either understanding or truthfulness calls into question EVERYTHING he writes.
Then he should have left the science out because he butchered it.I think his point in the article is the disconnect between theistic evolution and continuous Catholic teaching. The article is not a scientific textbook.
If you write about science it will be. You and I are friends, but if you wrote an article that started with a blatant mistake like the one that Butel made, I would question everything else in your article.
If I wrote an article about Christ and stated up front that He really was human and only thought that He was God, would you not question the rest of my writing? You should.
Peace
Tim
R
reggieM
Guest
The flood narrative is symbolic … of God wiping out a large population.
“For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark”. – Matthew 24:38
B
buffalo
Guest
This goes back to your question of what is evolutionism. The article defines it:
From the article:
…
The “science” of evolutionism, as it is taught in universities today, is wholly materialistic, since it requires a “natural” explanation of how things have come about and excludes any consideration of supernatural causes as being “unscientific.” This, of course, is based upon fallacious reasoning which first found its expression in Comte’s “Positivism” in the early part of the nineteenth century.
Code:
Contrary to what Comte claimed, the methods of empirical science cannot be employed either to prove or to falsify any theory that attempts to explain the distant unobservable past. [2] As a consequence of this, empirical science can only suggest, through inferences drawn from the circumstantial evidence available to us today, what a feasible scenario of the origin-history of life on earth and all other things might be. If, however, as can be demonstrated, valid inferences cannot be drawn in favour of naturally caused origins, than it is both logical and scientific to consider whether the evidence infers supernatural causes.This pretty much has been my position all along.
R
reggieM
Guest
That’s ok. You’re mixing up a “process” and “the explanation of the process”. Both are called “evolution” on these threads and that makes it easy for people to both claim and deny contradictory things about “evolution” in the same discussion.Okay, but what’s the difference between “theistic” and “atheistic” evolution? How does the process of the one differ from that of the other?
If an apple falls on my head, I can think gravity did it (i.e., a natural process – e.g., repeated wobbling from wind pressure caused the stem to weaken and break, thus making the apple fall) or I can think God did it (i.e., a supernatural process – e.g., God momentarily increased the pull of gravity on the apple to make the apple fall). How do I tell which one happened?
Seems to me, if you lay out the process of evolution and call it “atheistic”, then lay out as an alternative the same process of evolution and call it “theistic”, you haven’t really accomplished anything beyond a semantic victory.
–Mike
P.S.: Sorry if this has been addressed before. I’m new.
There can, indeed, be atheistic explainations about “natural processes” as when textbooks state that evolution occurs by “purposeless, impersonal and undirected” means. That theory is a denial of divine providence (and thus incompatible with Catholicism).
For some reason our Catholic-evolutionists here continually fail to bring attention to that distinction, thus spreading more confusion and appearing to conflict with the teachings of the Holy See.
D
Dchsknight
Guest
The Flood literatly Happened it was not symbolic. It happened. Because there is this funny thing. In history there are countless things in many different cultures that are the same,.many stories that are the same through out all cultures. Guess what ALL cultures if you dig far enough have a flood story. The funny thing about myths and legends is they all start somewhere in truth. So if all Cultures have a myth about a flood destroying the world Guess what? it happened! denying that it did is Hersey and denial of God’s word. Any one who denies God’s word better watch out, Because he might deny you.
M
mpartyka
Guest
I once heard or read a story in which two duelists walked twenty paces apart, fired their pistols directly at each other, then were mystified that neither of them was shot. Turns out the bullets collided in midair, fused together, and then fell straight down to the ground.
The natural explanation is clearly that two bullets heading in opposite directions that collide in midair will fuse and drop to the ground, and the men fired their guns in such a way that such a collision occurred. Neither of the men purposed for such a thing to happen, so neither was personally involved in the formulation of the occurrence – i.e., they weren’t consciously directing the bullets to collide. So, what can we say about this instance? Was the hand of God involved or not? More importantly, how could one tell whether the hand of God was involved in bringing about this “miracle”?
I think this question is important because the argument of the Intelligent Design camp is that once you establish that the statistical probability of an event’s happening is below a certain quantitative threshold, you then know that an intelligence was somehow involved in bringing about that event’s happening, should the event actually occur.
–Mike
O
Orogeny
Guest
Then he isn’t even a very good writer because you missed his definition of scientism. His definition is actually one that I think you and I would agree is correct:
What part of that definition would you disagree with?
The rest of the stuff that you quoted is only the way he sees “evolutionism” being applied. And is wrong in its science.
Which science allows consideration of supernatural causes? Physics? Chemistry? Geology? Why would only biology be required to accept supernatural causes?
Again, he is just wrong about that. I personally have listed ways to falsify the theory on numerous threads. And if he thinks we can neither “prove” or falsify a natural cause, how in the world can we do that with a supernatural cause?
What garbage. Considering his educational background, do you think that he actually sat in any science classes to at least test his claim? Is it possible that perhaps his qualifications (or lack therefo) actually do matter to his arguments?
Peace
Tim
S
StAnastasia
Guest
How is that parallel to God’s ordering the murder of Achan’s children in Joshua 7:15?
M
mpartyka
Guest
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Tell that to Pope Benedict!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
This was your dispute with Rossum, not me, so I’ll let Rossum answer you.
M
mpartyka
Guest
R
reggieM
Guest
It’s not that you “know” but that intelligence is a better answer than “sheer luck” because we already know that intelligence is used to create “designed things” and design shows those extreme statistical improbabilities.
Certainly, with a one-time event we couldn’t conclude much. But do the same thing 10 times in a row, and the explanation that it was just a “random occurrence” could not be credible at all.
E
edwest2
Guest
If a person observes nature through natural reason, we can detect God in it. This is a long-standing teaching of the Catholic Church. I want to make it clear that without people that are trained to use a certain method, no science would be done. But, they are still people regardless of their profession. When I am told by the journal Nature that most leading scientists reject God and those like Dawkins, Harris, Myers and others, actively speak out against God and supernatural events based on science, then materialism and material causes has become their only dogmatic position. When I write here that miracles occur today, I get the reply that what can ‘science’ say about that? If a miracle can be explained then it would fall out of the realm of the supernatural to the natural.
Go online and look up the tilma, or cloak, of our Lady of Guadalupe. The Church declares it was not painted by human hands. You can read about the various experts who have studied it.
Intelligent Design does show that the odds of certain mutations leading to a novel, useful and functional change in a macro organism are below the threshold of possibility.
Peace,
Ed
D
Dchsknight
Guest
Now i know how Noah felt. Pope, Priest, Pastor, Layperson, whatever who ever, Denial of God’s word is wrong, and people who are doing it are playing a game, and a ly one. The bible is ture over any one and anything. All Scripture is God breathed. All of History backs up the bible and the bible backs up history. People are simply scared that if they Actually prove anything in the bible, that it would shatter our world as we know it. Science would be destroyed because a book that has survived for over 2000 years is actually right, and if it is right on the subjects of the flood and the plagues and the red sea parting then the Resurrection of a Jewish man, is real and his presence is truly in the Eucharist and they would have to submit and obey a good and holy God. Instead they trade their hearts for a lie. and Follows lies instead of the truth. That is exactly what Luther did, What Calvin did and what satan and protestants did and are still doing to this day. Trading their hearts and what they know is true and holy, for lies and shames of intellect and Faithlessness.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
What does pursuing this line of moral inquiry (interesting though it is) have to do with evolution?
B
buffalo
Guest
I wouldn’t disagree with his definition. What he is getting to is science is self limiting and does not and cannot pronounce in things non-empirical. This is in agreement with what the Pope and Cardinal have been saying, that evolutionism the philosophy, is wrong and dangerous to society.
I define scientism as the superiority of science over Revelation. This has the effect of reducing the authority of the Bible. It is making us interpret the Bible constrained by science.
- Status