Faith and Science

  • Thread starter Thread starter cassini
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TMC said:
The current Pope has not denied or spoken against evolution as a theory of the origin of species. He has repeatedly said that we do not know or understand everything about creation. Has has also said that we cannot accept an atheistic version of creation - that all of creation is happenstance. But the theory of evolution is not inherently atheistic. Cardinal Schönborn has made comments in the past that some have interpreted as anti-evolution, but he has clarified that evolution and Catholicism are not in conflict:

zenit.org/article-24145?l=english

Whenever a Church official says something like this - that science cannot explain the love of God or that God preexists creation or that humans are not merely random occurences, or anything that mentions God and science within 100 words of each other - its touted as denying science or denying evolution. That is not what Shoenborn is saying.
Click to expand...
Then he will have to overturn the following continuous Catholic teachings:
  1. Adam and Eve - all of us come from them
  2. Eve from Adam
 
buffalo said:
Then he will have to overturn the following continuous Catholic teachings:
  1. Adam and Eve - all of us come from them
  2. Eve from Adam
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “overturn”? I accept the truth of Genesis 1 even though I don’t interpret light as having existed several days before the sun. The Hebrew community and the author(s) of Genesis employed symbolic language.

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
What do you mean by “overturn”? I accept the truth of Genesis 1 even though I don’t interpret light as having existed several days before the sun. The Hebrew community and the author(s) of Genesis employed symbolic language.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
So after all these years we have a stronger movement towards symboli language which will eliminate 1 and 2?
 
StAnastasia said:
Cassini, will you be presenting a session on your theory at the American Astronomical Union conference next year, or at the geophysical sciences convention in San Francisco this coming week? If you’ve got cutting edge information regarding the truth of geocentricity, the scientific world should know about it.

Or are you afraid to propose such a session because you lack the requisite education and credentials in physics and astronomy? :o Are you afraid you wouldn’t receive a fair hearing from serious scientists? Still, if you are in possession of the truth, you should share it in more fora than just Catholic Answers. You owe it to the world to make this new knowledge known, and you should be confident that if it is true, and if God is an advocate of Truth, the Holy Spirit will be with you as you present! 👍

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
StA, that is a very reasonable suggestion. I deliberately chose a Catholic forum to debate this subject for the simple reason I thought Catholics would take note of the spitirual element that is essential to the subject under discussion. Alas I find that there is no difference between Catholics and atheists when it come to faith and science. Science is now more powerful than God in that so powerful is the grip of science on the modern man that it is used even to RESTRICT God in how he created.

Again I tell you and all that when it was suggested to me 20 years ago that the Church was not proven wrong when decreeing the sun is not fixed etc., I undertook a thorough study of all the so-called proofs for heliocentricism. I satisfied myself that there was/is no such proof and that science could not prove either G or H. When I try to interest others in the thesis that the Church did not err in her papal decree all I get in return is ridicule and an encyclopaedia of heliocentric physics to prove me wrong. But my study showed me that all COSMIC physics is theoretical physics. So everywhere I find guys thinking they are actually proving me wrong with more and more physics conjured up to fit the H scenarion. Newton PROVED nothing. He conjured up a physics that would fit the facts found by astronomers and in tike this theory began to be presented as though man could actually measure the supposed gravitational pull on the earth. Even on this thread some tried to use the measurements of gravity on earth (the maths of things falling towards the earth) as thought it was part of a gravity that had the earth supposedly being drawn away from the earth towards the moon or sun or planet.
Anyway StA, If 1,000,000 scientists tried to tell me I ought to believe their theoretical maths I would reply that I have more faith in the word of God if I have a choice of either G or H.
There is of course a lenghty history to the H theory, it being a religion of the pagans too, and a doctrine of Gism. Philosophically and theologically a G cosmos has a far more Catholic usage whereas a H universe is preferred by atheists. Thus I have dozens of reasons to side with the Bible, the Church and with god’s purpose in making it G.
My studies have gone far further that any other G before me, for i have established an electromagnetic connection that unifies cosmic movements (known in H circles as universal gravitation) in a G scenario.
However I shall not be sharing these findings on an open forum for as the Lord put it, it would be like trying to share pearls with swine.
 
Am I correct in saying that there is not ONE reader who accepts the Church’s decree that the sun orbits the earth and the earth is immovable at the centre of the universe?
 
Am I correct is saying that there is not one Genesis literalist contributing to this thread.
 
cassini said:
However I shall not be sharing these findings on an open forum for as the Lord put it, it would be like trying to share pearls with swine.
Click to expand...
Cassini, you should not refer to the world’s astronomers as “swine.” But it does seem that you have left the rest of humanity behind, mired in our relatively heliocentric physics. As you rise up to geocentric heights, please remember the rest of us stranded here below!

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
Cassini, you should not refer to the world’s astronomers as “swine.” But it does seem that you have left the rest of humanity behind, mired in our relatively heliocentric physics. As you rise up to geocentric heights, please remember the rest of us stranded here below!

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
I have no problem with astronomers or astronomy, my problem is with what they call COSMOLOGISTS.
 
buffalo said:
Do you agree with the Catholic teaching on Adam and Eve?
Click to expand...
The teaching that says Adam was created by God direct from inanimate matter and that He infused Adam’s body with a human soul and that He then created Eve from the flesh of Adam. He then tested them and under the direct temptation of the Devil Adam and Eve committed Original Sin. this sin in turn deprived Adam and Eve from heaven and for all their descendants. That one personal sin that gave rise to the Incarnation, birth, life and death of Jesus so that man could gain heaven once again.

That teaching, the one billions of Catholic were taught and believed.
 
StAnastasia said:
Text and citation?
Click to expand...
We have been through this over and over.

Here we go again.

Pius IX. The year after the publication of Darwin’s evolution thesis, the Provincial Council of Cologne issued the following canon, which was approved by Pope Pius IX:
Code: 
					“Our first parents were immediately created by God (Gen.2.7). Therefore we declare as quite contrary to Holy Scripture and the Faith the opinion of those who dare to assert that man, in respect of the body, is derived by spontaneous transformation from an imperfect nature, which improved continually until it reached the present human state.” [10]
“This sole true God by His goodness and omnipotent power, not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows upon creatures with most free volition, immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature, out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely the angelic and the mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body.” [11]

Leo XIII. On 10 February, 1880, twenty-one years after the publication of Darwin’s first book, Pope Leo XIII, issued an encyclical letter on marriage entitled, “Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae” [12], in which the pope said:
Code: 
					 “We record what is known, and cannot be doubted in any way, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam, when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness through all futurity of time.” [13]
						
					 Pius X. In 1909 Pope Pius X approved decisions of the first Pontifical Biblical Commission concerning the historical character of the first three chapters of Genesis. The answer to question No.3 can be seen to conform precisely to the teachings of Pius IX and Leo XIII. Not surprisingly, because it is said by the Commission to convey the fundamental or foundational teachings of the Christian religion, and it also agrees with the unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers. Irrespective of the status Pius X gave to the teachings of the PBC in general in his Motu Proprio of 18th November, 1907, it would seem that this particular teaching, by virtue of what is stated above, already had the protection of the Holy Spirit.
						
					 Stated in a positive form, the decree teaches that Catholics cannot bring into question the literal and historical meaning of Genesis 1-3, where those chapters touch upon the fundamental or foundational teachings of the Christian religion, including (inter alia):
						
					 (a) the creation of all things wrought by God at the beginning of time;
						
					 (b) the special creation of man;
						
					 © the formation of the first woman from man;
						
					 (d) the unity or oneness of the human race; (and) 
						
					(e) the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity and immortality.
 
cassini said:
… So, how do you get false science? Simple, science is rendered possibly false when it is not directed by Catholic theology … Alas it seem I find myself in opposition to popes, Churchmen and lay folk for centuries now.

Which side are you on?
Click to expand...
Couple of thoughts, the Church does not and cannot dictate Truth as it is, has been, and will be forever. To us Catholics Truth, which is inseparable from faith and reason, is not a something, it’s a someone.

Second, a good indicator of Truth would be Beauty. Both scientists and theologians can agree, that when something is presented in an elegant, sophisticated way, there is Truth to it.
 
buffalo said:
We have been through this over and over.

Here we go again.

Pius IX. The year after the publication of Darwin’s evolution thesis, the Provincial Council of Cologne issued the following canon, which was approved by Pope Pius IX:
Code: 
					“Our first parents were immediately created by God (Gen.2.7). Therefore we declare as quite contrary to Holy Scripture and the Faith the opinion of those who dare to assert that man, in respect of the body, is derived by spontaneous transformation from an imperfect nature, which improved continually until it reached the present human state.” [10]
“This sole true God by His goodness and omnipotent power, not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows upon creatures with most free volition, immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature, out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely the angelic and the mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body.” [11]

Leo XIII. On 10 February, 1880, twenty-one years after the publication of Darwin’s first book, Pope Leo XIII, issued an encyclical letter on marriage entitled, “Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae” [12], in which the pope said:
Code: 
					 “We record what is known, and cannot be doubted in any way, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam, when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness through all futurity of time.” [13]
						
					 Pius X. In 1909 Pope Pius X approved decisions of the first Pontifical Biblical Commission concerning the historical character of the first three chapters of Genesis. The answer to question No.3 can be seen to conform precisely to the teachings of Pius IX and Leo XIII. Not surprisingly, because it is said by the Commission to convey the fundamental or foundational teachings of the Christian religion, and it also agrees with the unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers. Irrespective of the status Pius X gave to the teachings of the PBC in general in his Motu Proprio of 18th November, 1907, it would seem that this particular teaching, by virtue of what is stated above, already had the protection of the Holy Spirit.
						
					 Stated in a positive form, the decree teaches that Catholics cannot bring into question the literal and historical meaning of Genesis 1-3, where those chapters touch upon the fundamental or foundational teachings of the Christian religion, including (inter alia):
						
					 (a) the creation of all things wrought by God at the beginning of time;
						
					 (b) the special creation of man;
						
					 © the formation of the first woman from man;
						
					 (d) the unity or oneness of the human race; (and) 
						
					(e) the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity and immortality.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that Buffalo, priceless. But watch them WORM out of it. Modernists are professionals at it. No doubt they will cite the evolutionist Pope Pius XII. They did the same thing with the 1616 geocentric reading of scripture decree which later popes popes denied.
 
M0nkey said:
Couple of thoughts, the Church does not and cannot dictate Truth as it is, has been, and will be forever. To us Catholics Truth, which is inseparable from faith and reason, is not a something, it’s a someone.

Second, a good indicator of Truth would be Beauty. Both scientists and theologians can agree, that when something is presented in an elegant, sophisticated way, there is Truth to it.
Click to expand...
So that’s why you call yourself MONKEY!
 
M0nkey said:
Second, a good indicator of Truth would be Beauty. Both scientists and theologians can agree, that when something is presented in an elegant, sophisticated way, there is Truth to it.
Click to expand...
What? And the devil isn’t smart enough to present his case in an elegant, sophisticated, beautiful way? If he did it in an unelegant, unsophisticated, ugly way, nobody would believe him.

Do you believe in the devil, or do you believe that Satan is merely a literary metaphor of some type?
 
Originally Posted by M0nkey
Second, a good indicator of Truth would be Beauty. Both scientists and theologians can agree, that when something is presented in an elegant, sophisticated way, there is Truth to it.
What? And the devil isn’t smart enough to present his case in an elegant, sophisticated, beautiful way? If he did it in an unelegant, unsophisticated, ugly way, nobody would believe him.
Click to expand...
The devil doesn’t run nature. God does it. And we have learned that when a theory is “ugly”, it’s probably wrong. One time after another, when we get to the bottom of a phenomenon, the theory that best describes it is elegant (in the sense of functional simplicity) and yes, beautiful.

Would you expect any less of God?
Do you believe in the devil, or do you believe that Satan is merely a literary metaphor of some type?
Click to expand...
He exists, but he’s a wretched being who can only attempt to twist and distort what God creates. And he is not able to change the rules by which nature works.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top