B
buffalo
Guest
No, so I can offer a rebuttal. You are the guys who whine, call names and say nay. I offer explanations backed by modern science.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
traillius
Guest
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the opinion that science need not yield to religion, yet that religion must yield to science.We should use scientific discoveries to inform our religious questions, if we are truly interested in truth. Do you not agree?
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Science does not need to yield to anybody. If you are talking about the philosophical opinions of some scientists, well, that’s not science. If Catholicism is an honest religion then it must take in to account any scientific evidence, when expressing the faith.I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the opinion that science need not yield to religion, yet that religion must yield to science.
E
edwest2
Guest
Unless you can cite a peer reviewed paper titled: “A Scientific Analysis of the Anthropological Aspects of the Book of Genesis in the Christian Bible,” I have no idea what the purpose of your experiment is.We should use scientific discoveries to inform our religious questions, if we are truly interested in truth. Do you not agree?
Second, who or what even prompted the question: “God should be kept out of scientific Questions.”?
Truth? If a scientist stood next to Jesus when He gave sight to the blind, cleansed the lepers and raised the dead, what data would that scientist recover? Water to wine, instantly? And the method used was?
God bless,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
“must” Why? Are nonbelievers going to line up at Churches, anxious to sign up because we “accept” modern science?Science does not need to yield to anybody. If you are talking about the philosophical opinions of some scientists, well, that’s not science. If Catholicism is an honest religion then it must take in to account any scientific evidence, when expressing the faith.
“the faith” And what do we tell the new members about the Real Presence, the communion of Saints, miracles, papal infallibility, ashes on Ash Wednesday?
Our “faith” is not just faith. It is based on reality. Paul told the people at the time: If Christ is not risen then your faith in in vain, ye are still in your sins. In other words, if Jesus did not actually rise from the dead, bodily, for real, you’ve got nothing.
That is the honest truth.
God bless,
Ed
T
Tuno
Guest
The method used was parable.And the method used was?
“If Christ is not risen then your faith in in vain, ye are still in your sins.” Try viewing that as parable as well. It might lead you to a rather wonderful conclusion, if you don’t dismiss the suggestion outright.
E
edwest2
Guest
The Bible records things that Jesus did that were miracles, just as the Catholic Church today investigates miracles and elevates people to sainthood based on those miracles.The method used was parable.
God bless,
Ed
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Its irrelevant how many people accept the faith. The most important thing is having an honest faith, a faith which doesn’t blankly ignore scientific data as if to say there is a possibility that it could disprove the faith if it is held to be true of reality. That to me is not a reasonable faith. That’s a weak paranoid faith.“must” Why? Are nonbelievers going to line up at Churches, anxious to sign up because we “accept” modern science?
Why does an uncompromising acceptance of scientific data rule out the above beliefs of Catholics? I really don’t see what your getting at? It seems to me that you confusing materialist naturalism with the study of empirical science.“the faith” And what do we tell the new members about the Real Presence, the communion of Saints, miracles, papal infallibility, ashes on Ash Wednesday?
Our “faith” is not just faith. It is based on reality. Paul told the people at the time: If Christ is not risen then your faith in in vain, ye are still in your sins. In other words, if Jesus did not actually rise from the dead, bodily, for real, you’ve got nothing.
That is the honest truth.
B
buffalo
Guest
No one disagrees that faith and reason cannot be opposed providing the science is true. Challenging the science is not a weak or paranoid position. There is just way to much new science calling the popular explanation into question.Its irrelevant how many people accept the faith. The most important thing is having an honest faith, a faith which doesn’t blankly ignore scientific data as if to say there is a possibility that it could disprove the faith if it is held to be true of reality. That to me is not a reasonable faith. That’s a weak paranoid faith.
Why does an uncompromising acceptance of scientific data rule out the above beliefs of Catholics? I really don’t see what your getting at? It seems to me that you confusing materialist naturalism with the study of empirical science.
B
buffalo
Guest
Let us examine the possibilities:Oh, but we have. Every time you look in a mirror you’re seeing a creature that exists because of an observed fusion mutation. The fact that you don’t know this calls your knowledge of genomics into question…
- Do we see any humans that have 48? What does this mean?
- If there were humans with 48 and now we all have 46, we are still human and not a new species. This would not be macro-evolution.
Figure 1. This animated gif shows how even if the empirical genetic evidence mandates a chromosomal fusion event, this doesn’t tell you anything about whether or not humans share ancestry with apes. The “Separate Ancestry” slide shows that the chromosomal fusion event may have simply taken place in a separately-designed basic type which, initially, had 48 chromosomes. The “Common Ancestry” slide shows how the chromosomal fusion event may have also taken place in a line which led back to a hypothetical common ancestor of humans and modern apes. The point is that all we have is evidence for a fusion event, but that fusion event is equally compatible with either separate ancestry from apes, or common ancestry with apes. The fusion event itself does not provide any independent evidence for common ancestry with apes. To argue that it is evidence for common ancestry requires special pleading.
E
edwest2
Guest
Then provide two specific examples of scientific data where you think it helps ‘the faith’ in some way. Show how the examples specifically support or deny something.Its irrelevant how many people accept the faith. The most important thing is having an honest faith, a faith which doesn’t blankly ignore scientific data as if to say there is a possibility that it could disprove the faith if it is held to be true of reality. That to me is not a reasonable faith. That’s a weak paranoid faith.
Why does an uncompromising acceptance of scientific data rule out the above beliefs of Catholics? I really don’t see what your getting at? It seems to me that you confusing materialist naturalism with the study of empirical science.
God bless,
Ed
T
traillius
Guest
Religious truth doesn’t yield either. If both are true then they must agree. In case of actual conflict, one must yield. If someone is implying that religion is the less powerful and therefore the one that is untrue, in case of conflict, I would disagree. The catholic faith hasn’t altered its fundamental teachings in the course of almost 2000 years. Science, on the other hand is changing constantly based on available evidence. So which one yields more readily to change? I can’t speak for anyone else, but if I see a conflict, I will choose the side that has shown to be more trustworthy, by way of being able to withstand time and change, and still present consistency.Science does not need to yield to anybody. If you are talking about the philosophical opinions of some scientists, well, that’s not science. If Catholicism is an honest religion then it must take in to account any scientific evidence, when expressing the faith.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
When has there ever been any real conflict between modern Science and religion that isn’t based upon some fallacious account of what constitutes either dogmatic belief in God or a misunderstanding of what empirical science is teaching us or what modern science is?If both are true then they must agree. In case of actual conflict, one must yield.
I guess you still think that the earth is still the centre the universe? Perhaps you think that 7 day creationism is and has always been an infallible dogma of the Catholic faith!!
Give me a break. Gimme a kit kat.
T
traillius
Guest
Again, modern science vs. eternal truth. Usually no conflict, but if there is an actual ( not apparent ) conflict, eternal truth wins
Your implication seems to be that science is the infallible one, in any conflict. This is not a catholic viewpoint by and large.
Your implication seems to be that science is the infallible one, in any conflict. This is not a catholic viewpoint by and large.
T
traillius
Guest
For the record, I am not aware of where the center of the universe lies, physically, but its surely is not the earth.
M
MariaTS
Guest
In order for the universe to have existed, something had to create it. Without a creator there is no science. Now, this creator may be long dead, may still be alive, or may be unable to communicate with us. It is highly unlikely, from a scientific standpoint, for there to be a heaven and/or a hell. However, it is 100% true, from a scientific standpoint, that we cannot possibly prove if there is a creator or not, if there is heaven and/or hell or not.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.[29]
In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life. Furthermore, operating as real,** though secondary causes**, human beings contribute to the reshaping and transformation of the universe.
A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation
For all those who are under the mistaken impression that the Church recognises some kind of conflict between current scientific issues and faith, read it and weep.
In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.[29]
In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life. Furthermore, operating as real,** though secondary causes**, human beings contribute to the reshaping and transformation of the universe.
A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation
For all those who are under the mistaken impression that the Church recognises some kind of conflict between current scientific issues and faith, read it and weep.
B
buffalo
Guest
You are aware that the redshift data of galaxies show these galaxies are located in concentric rings about our own?When has there ever been any real conflict between modern Science and religion that isn’t based upon some fallacious account of what constitutes either dogmatic belief in God or a misunderstanding of what empirical science is teaching us or what modern science is?
I guess you still think that the earth is still the centre the universe? Perhaps you think that 7 day creationism is and has always been an infallible dogma of the Catholic faith!!
Give me a break. Gimme a kit kat.
T
traillius
Guest
I am not sure who sees a conflict. Perhaps we are not understanding what you mean by those who have that 'mistaken impression. " That at least was not my argument, only that God, and thus his church, is the judge of science, not the other way around, should a difference need to be settled. Of course, either side is human, physically speaking, so error is possible. Since they agree…awesome.
E
edwest2
Guest
This is it? First, Humanae Generis (1950) and Communion and Stewardship are in agreement.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.[29]
In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life. Furthermore, operating as real,** though secondary causes**, human beings contribute to the reshaping and transformation of the universe.
A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation
For all those who are under the mistaken impression that the Church recognises some kind of conflict between current scientific issues and faith, read it and weep.
No purely scientific information is complete until the Church adds those other areas of reason we still need as mentioned by Pope Benedict. This is not a trivial matter and too many, not knowing these other areas of reason exist, have an incomplete picture of the real creation.
God bless,
Ed
- Status
- Not open for further replies.