R
reggieM
Guest
Then how did you arrive at this conclusion?
- Status
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
response:
I will admit that it’s the interent which lacks the personal face to face interactions (including body language) which often helps a message to be conveyed more easilly. But I too admit that I thought you were saying something negative in regards to the miraculous nature of the eucharist. At least, it sounded that way to me.
response to response:
To be far Barbarian, I too thought that you were saying nonsense to the idea that Christ works a miracle every day, millions of times a day, on every Catholic altar where there is a Holy Mass.
I will admit that it’s the interent which lacks the personal face to face interactions (including body language) which often helps a message to be conveyed more easilly. But I too admit that I thought you were saying something negative in regards to the miraculous nature of the eucharist. At least, it sounded that way to me.
R
reggieM
Guest
Thanks, Mr. Ex Nihilo.
I was sincerely trying to understand why Barbarian referred to my comment as “nonsense”.
I think he worded his reply poorly. Perhaps he meant “since God is teaching us in those miracles of the Eucharist, then …”
Actually, on second thought I don’t know what he meant.
Honestly, I don’t think he has an answer. Really, what he said was “nonsense” (his sentences do not make sense, literally).
His proposal was that God does not intervene frequently in the life of our planet. But our Catholic faith teaches us that God does intervene – at every conception of a child, at every valid sacramental rite (and numerous miracles of healing and answers to prayer).
God is always intervening. This is one thing that evolution does not account for.
Perhaps if this was recognized, more scientists would pray to God before they conducted their studies – to gain wisdom from the creator in order to understand His creation (as many Catholic scientists of the past did – and they credited their findings to God’s help).
I was sincerely trying to understand why Barbarian referred to my comment as “nonsense”.
I think he worded his reply poorly. Perhaps he meant “since God is teaching us in those miracles of the Eucharist, then …”
Actually, on second thought I don’t know what he meant.
Honestly, I don’t think he has an answer. Really, what he said was “nonsense” (his sentences do not make sense, literally).
His proposal was that God does not intervene frequently in the life of our planet. But our Catholic faith teaches us that God does intervene – at every conception of a child, at every valid sacramental rite (and numerous miracles of healing and answers to prayer).
God is always intervening. This is one thing that evolution does not account for.
Perhaps if this was recognized, more scientists would pray to God before they conducted their studies – to gain wisdom from the creator in order to understand His creation (as many Catholic scientists of the past did – and they credited their findings to God’s help).
R
reggieM
Guest
Do you believe it is possible to give a “whole, unified” statement of the world without refering to God at all?
R
reggieM
Guest
In reply to SpiritMeadow’s comments on unity of soul and body:
I found this article by Cardinal Avery Dulles from October this year to be excellent.
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6038
Quoting …
The Thomist philosopher Etienne Gilson vigorously contended in his 1971 book From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again that Francis Bacon and others perpetrated a philosophical error when they eliminated two of Aristotle’s four causes from the purview of science. They sought to explain everything in mechanistic terms, referring only to material and efficient causes and discarding formal and final causality.
Without the form, or the formal cause, it would be impossible to account for the unity and specific identity of any substance. In the human composite the form is the spiritual soul, which makes the organism a single entity and gives it its human character. Once the form is lost, the material elements decompose, and the body ceases to be human. **It would be futile, therefore, to try to define human beings in terms of their bodily components alone. **
The Catholic Church has consistently maintained that the human soul is not a product of any biological cause but is immediately created by God. This doctrine raises the question whether God is not necessarily involved in the fashioning of the human body, since the human body comes to be when the soul is infused. The advent of the human soul makes the body correlative with it and therefore human. Even though it may be difficult for the scientist to detect the point at which the evolving body passes from the anthropoid to the human, it would be absurd for a brute animal—say, a chimpanzee—to possess a body perfectly identical with the human.
I found this article by Cardinal Avery Dulles from October this year to be excellent.
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6038
Quoting …
The Thomist philosopher Etienne Gilson vigorously contended in his 1971 book From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again that Francis Bacon and others perpetrated a philosophical error when they eliminated two of Aristotle’s four causes from the purview of science. They sought to explain everything in mechanistic terms, referring only to material and efficient causes and discarding formal and final causality.
Without the form, or the formal cause, it would be impossible to account for the unity and specific identity of any substance. In the human composite the form is the spiritual soul, which makes the organism a single entity and gives it its human character. Once the form is lost, the material elements decompose, and the body ceases to be human. **It would be futile, therefore, to try to define human beings in terms of their bodily components alone. **
The Catholic Church has consistently maintained that the human soul is not a product of any biological cause but is immediately created by God. This doctrine raises the question whether God is not necessarily involved in the fashioning of the human body, since the human body comes to be when the soul is infused. The advent of the human soul makes the body correlative with it and therefore human. Even though it may be difficult for the scientist to detect the point at which the evolving body passes from the anthropoid to the human, it would be absurd for a brute animal—say, a chimpanzee—to possess a body perfectly identical with the human.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
But you didn’t alter what I said to make it appear so. That is the difference. That is compelling evidence that he understood what I meant, and changed it, so as to make it appear otherwise. I went back and looked, and it turns out that it wasn’t the first time.
Misunderstandings, they will happen. But doctoring dialogue to make it appear that one thinks what one does not, that is indefensible.
If he doesn’t do it again, I will consider the issue closed.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
But if God regularly set aside the laws of nature, we would have the disaster of an unpredictable and unknowable universe, in which we could count on nothing. Notice that the gift of the soul and transubstantiation are done in such a way that they cause no such difficulties. While He does intervene in a way that directly shows His touch from time to time, it is not common.
Science cannot account for the supernatural, nor should it do so. We have faith and tradition and Scripture for that. Evolution is about the changes in allele frequency in populations. No reasonable person expects it to account for miracles. And so far, nothing in evolutionary phenomena shows any sign of the miraculous.
Except, of course, in the sense that nature itself is a miracle.
D
dcdurel
Guest
So, we have Einstein and the astrophysicists who accepted intelligent design, NOT because of their preconceived philosophies, but BECAUSE of their scientific studies.
Then we have those who reject Intelligent Design,** NOT because they can find any fault in the reasoning of Einstein and the other astrophysicists,** but** BECAUSE of their preconceived philosophies.**
Who is more scientific?
Who is more objective?
Then we have those who reject Intelligent Design,** NOT because they can find any fault in the reasoning of Einstein and the other astrophysicists,** but** BECAUSE of their preconceived philosophies.**
Who is more scientific?
Who is more objective?
D
dcdurel
Guest
This blind acceptance of pre-conceived philosophies which leads people to reject intelligent design leads them to try to simplify the most complex parts of life to simple constructions.
Thus we find those most ignorant of biology blindly believing in Darwinian evolution.
For example, one of those who rejected ID wrote, on this thread.
The evidence indicates that cell membranes preceded RNA. Phospholipids can form rather easily abiotically.
He reduced cell membrane to simply phospholipids.
Even in Wikipedia, the** simplified **explanation of a cell membrane is extremely complex.
Here is only a little on it:
The cell membrane consists of three classes of amphipathic lipids: phospholipids, glycolipids, and steroids. The relative composition of each depends upon the type of cell, but in the majority of cases phospholipids are the most abundant.[3] In RBC studies, 30% of the plasma membrane is lipid.
The fatty chains in phospholipids and glycolipids usually contain an even number of carbon atoms, typically between 14 and 24. The 16- and 18-carbon fatty acids are the most common. Fatty acids may be saturated or unsaturated, with the configuration of the double bonds nearly always cis. The length and the degree of unsaturation of fatty acids chains have a profound effect on membranes fluidity[4] as unsaturated lipids create a kink, preventing the fatty acids from packing together as tightly, thus decreasing the melting point (increasing the fluidity) of the membrane.
The entire membrane is held together via non-covalent interaction of hydrophobic tails, however the structure is quite fluid and not fixed rigidly in place. Phospholipid molecules in the cell membrane are “fluid” in the sense that they are free to diffuse and exhibit rapid lateral diffusion along the layer they are present in.
( of course they are fluid, remember this is a living organ of the cell, not an inert plastic type film)
We continue:
About 5% of the plasma membrane weight is carbohydrate, predominantly glycoprotein, but with some lipoprotein (cerebrosides and gangliosides). Mostly, no glycosylation occurs on other unit membranes, and only ever occurs on the extracellular surface of cell membranes.
The glycocalyx is an important feature in all cells, especially epithelia with microvilli. Recent data suggest the glycocalyx participates in cell adhesion, lymphocyte homing, and many others.
The penultimate sugar is galactose and the terminal sugar is sialic acid as the sugar backbone is modified in the golgi apparatus. Sialic acid carries a negative charge, providing an external barrier to charged particles.
The cell membrane plays host to a large amount of protein which is responsible for its various activities. The amount of protein differs between species and according to function, however the typical amount in a cell membrane is 50%.[4] These proteins are undoubtedly important to a cell: approximately a third of the genes in yeast code specifically for them, and this number is even higher in multicellular organisms.[3]
Thus we find those most ignorant of biology blindly believing in Darwinian evolution.
For example, one of those who rejected ID wrote, on this thread.
The evidence indicates that cell membranes preceded RNA. Phospholipids can form rather easily abiotically.
He reduced cell membrane to simply phospholipids.
Even in Wikipedia, the** simplified **explanation of a cell membrane is extremely complex.
Here is only a little on it:
The cell membrane consists of three classes of amphipathic lipids: phospholipids, glycolipids, and steroids. The relative composition of each depends upon the type of cell, but in the majority of cases phospholipids are the most abundant.[3] In RBC studies, 30% of the plasma membrane is lipid.
The fatty chains in phospholipids and glycolipids usually contain an even number of carbon atoms, typically between 14 and 24. The 16- and 18-carbon fatty acids are the most common. Fatty acids may be saturated or unsaturated, with the configuration of the double bonds nearly always cis. The length and the degree of unsaturation of fatty acids chains have a profound effect on membranes fluidity[4] as unsaturated lipids create a kink, preventing the fatty acids from packing together as tightly, thus decreasing the melting point (increasing the fluidity) of the membrane.
The entire membrane is held together via non-covalent interaction of hydrophobic tails, however the structure is quite fluid and not fixed rigidly in place. Phospholipid molecules in the cell membrane are “fluid” in the sense that they are free to diffuse and exhibit rapid lateral diffusion along the layer they are present in.
( of course they are fluid, remember this is a living organ of the cell, not an inert plastic type film)
We continue:
About 5% of the plasma membrane weight is carbohydrate, predominantly glycoprotein, but with some lipoprotein (cerebrosides and gangliosides). Mostly, no glycosylation occurs on other unit membranes, and only ever occurs on the extracellular surface of cell membranes.
The glycocalyx is an important feature in all cells, especially epithelia with microvilli. Recent data suggest the glycocalyx participates in cell adhesion, lymphocyte homing, and many others.
The penultimate sugar is galactose and the terminal sugar is sialic acid as the sugar backbone is modified in the golgi apparatus. Sialic acid carries a negative charge, providing an external barrier to charged particles.
The cell membrane plays host to a large amount of protein which is responsible for its various activities. The amount of protein differs between species and according to function, however the typical amount in a cell membrane is 50%.[4] These proteins are undoubtedly important to a cell: approximately a third of the genes in yeast code specifically for them, and this number is even higher in multicellular organisms.[3]
D
dcdurel
Guest
The cell membrane, being exposed to the outside environment, is an important site of cell-cell communication. As such, a large variety of protein receptors and identification proteins, such as antigens, are present on the surface of the membrane. Functions of membrane proteins can also include cell-cell contact, surface recognition, cytoskeleton contact, signalling, enzymic activity, or transporting substances across the membrane.
Most membrane proteins must be inserted in some way into the membrane. For this to occur, an N-terminus “signal sequence” of amino acids directs proteins to the endoplasmic reticulum, which inserts the proteins into a lipid bilayer. Once inserted, the proteins is then transported to its final destination in vesicles, where the vesicle fuses with the target membrane.
There are** books** written only on the active transport of substances through the cell membrane, which require it to be a living organ of the cell. We don’t even begin to understand the complexity of the cell membrane of even the most simple cells.
Yet, those who reject Intelligent Design claim that all this “happened” to come together from substances floating around in the sea. Yeah, right.
On no, RNA had to come first. And even though RNA is extremely short lived in nature, somehow RNA just happened to form and happened to come up with the formula for this cell membrane and it just happened to form itself into a tiny round cell, instead of large sheets, or strings, and it just happened that all the necessary enzymes and energy systems and other parts of the cell just happened to find themselves in this cell membrane and suddenly, lightning hit, and it BEGAN TO LIVE.
Oh what those ignorant of science or truth want to believe.
ONLY those who blindly accept pre-conceived philosophies would even attempt to believe such a thing.
Oh, but we must reject Intelligent Design, because then that will lead people to believe God exists and He must have been the designer. We can’t have that. No way.
Thus, lets ignore Einstein and the other scientists and their discoveries and instead lets associate ID with the fundies and the ignorant. And lets simplify cell membranes to only phospholipids and tell people these form easily abiotically.
What a joke.
Most membrane proteins must be inserted in some way into the membrane. For this to occur, an N-terminus “signal sequence” of amino acids directs proteins to the endoplasmic reticulum, which inserts the proteins into a lipid bilayer. Once inserted, the proteins is then transported to its final destination in vesicles, where the vesicle fuses with the target membrane.
Code:
This goes on and on and on. This is a very simplified version. This was mostly the description of a red blood cell membrane, in which the ideal fluids, foods, and substances for life are surrounding the cell. Cell membranes of single living cells out in nature are much more complex.Yet, those who reject Intelligent Design claim that all this “happened” to come together from substances floating around in the sea. Yeah, right.
On no, RNA had to come first. And even though RNA is extremely short lived in nature, somehow RNA just happened to form and happened to come up with the formula for this cell membrane and it just happened to form itself into a tiny round cell, instead of large sheets, or strings, and it just happened that all the necessary enzymes and energy systems and other parts of the cell just happened to find themselves in this cell membrane and suddenly, lightning hit, and it BEGAN TO LIVE.
Oh what those ignorant of science or truth want to believe.
ONLY those who blindly accept pre-conceived philosophies would even attempt to believe such a thing.
Oh, but we must reject Intelligent Design, because then that will lead people to believe God exists and He must have been the designer. We can’t have that. No way.
Thus, lets ignore Einstein and the other scientists and their discoveries and instead lets associate ID with the fundies and the ignorant. And lets simplify cell membranes to only phospholipids and tell people these form easily abiotically.
What a joke.
S
Sideline
Guest
I’ve noticed at least three posts where it has been pointed out to you that Einstein did not advocate intelligent design as it is used now. If you insist he did, perhaps you could provide some proof.
Intelligent Design is a term used by people who think that there are biological constructs so complex that they needed to be formed by a creator. How, pray tell, could Einstein have possibly come to that conclusion through his studies in relativity?
S
Sideline
Guest
Actually, it’s more like the evidence leads to that conclusion.
Funny, we find the most insightful and educated biologists accept Neo-Darwinism as well. Not to mention all sorts of people in between. At a loss to grasp your point here.
I can’t find the quote you are talking about, but you are right that cell membranes aren’t simply phospholipids. However, this doesn’t prove your point.
First off, Neo-Darwinism talks about how life diverged from a common ancestor. Abiogenesis is the theory of how life began. There isn’t nearly as much consensus in the field of abiogensis as there is in the field of Evolution. We don’t know under what conditions life started on Earth, but we have some fairly good theories. What we do know is that organic matter can form from non-organic chemicals. We haven’t managed to get from chemicals to cell walls, but we have managed to create some building blocks.
You are right that cell walls are incredibly complex, but there is no reason to assume that simple building blocks can’t be formed into complex structures. In fact, we do they do.
S
Sideline
Guest
Bingo! You just said the magic word, give the man $100. We don’t understand it all yet. We understand parts of it, not all of it. How could you possibly come to the conclusion that it had to be designed if you don’t even understand it? How could you come to the conclusion that natural processes couldn’t form complex structures, if you don’t even understand them. Why would you come to the… totally unfounded… conclusion that complexity requires a designer, if you don’t even understand how it works?
No, not just happened. Were the result of natural processes. God doesn’t have to choose the rate at which an particular feather will fall, but it doesn’t mean it is random. It doesn’t mean that nothing governs or effects it. It’s not like we are saying that random chemicals became a cell in a matter of minutes. We’re saying that chemicals can be combined into organic compounds, and organic compounds can often self-replicate. They have start and stop mechanisms, they can interact with each other. In other words, chemicals can do pretty complex things.
You really like throwing about unsubstantiated absolutes don’t you?
No, we need to reject Intelligent Design because it is a made up pseudo-science that is designed to reinforce a particular religious dogma that doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
But hey, if you are comfortable with untruths, go ahead.
Once again, could you provide a link to the work that Einstein did in biology? I didn’t know Einstein wrote anything on cell wall development.
But let’s say he did. Einstein is a man. He had theories. Some were right. Actually, his theories were really successful. Did this endow him with some extraordinary ability to decipher the truth? Nope, he was on many occasions wrong. Am I going to reject one of the most successful theories in scientific history because some guy on a message board thinks that Einstein rejected Evolution? If I had a shred of common sense, I’d have to go no on that one.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
But I honetly didn’t think he altered it, rather just highlighting the keys points.
Well, to be fair, I too have *still *found it difficult to understand exactly what you are claiming, and this even after you’ve explained your position further.
At times you do appear to be saying that creation is miraculous and at other times you do appear to be saying that there is really nothing in particular that is miraculous in God’s creation.
I don’t think this second part is what you are intending, but it appears to come across that way at times.
I think mutual dialogue takes into account that both sides can be misunderstanding the “intent” of the other’s words when having a discussion like this. In fact, I would take it for granted that it will happen regardless of how carefully we phrase our statements-- so extra caution is required without ascribing faulty intentions to the process of dialogue.
I think this also pertains to the idea of God speaking a single word that carries on throughout his own creation-- many people look at evolution and the apparent confusion that suppposedly reigns and likewise ascribe faulty intentions to God’s speaking of his omnipotent singular dialogue: His Word.
Then perhaps you could explain your position more clearly. I ask because, even after all that’s been discussed, I still don’t understand exactly what it is that you are trying to get us to understand.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
This is directed toward everyone…
Since that which is defined as a miracle seems to be rather elusive, could it be agreed that a “true miracle” would be an event in which God paradoxically exerts his own free-will from above and beyond that which is he already knows to be pre-determined within his creation so as to guide the paths of his creation toward his Glory-- but only guiding insofar as his creation has rebelled against his will?
Can we make a distinction between minor and major miracles as the supernatural comes in contact with the natural?
Since that which is defined as a miracle seems to be rather elusive, could it be agreed that a “true miracle” would be an event in which God paradoxically exerts his own free-will from above and beyond that which is he already knows to be pre-determined within his creation so as to guide the paths of his creation toward his Glory-- but only guiding insofar as his creation has rebelled against his will?
Can we make a distinction between minor and major miracles as the supernatural comes in contact with the natural?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
But you didn’t alter what I said to make it appear so. That is the difference.
At any rate, I expect Reggie won’t do it again, and if so, we won’t have that problem. Perhaps I’m
But you didn’t alter what I said to make it appear so. That is the difference.
He removed the part of his statement, to which I said “nonsense”, and kept the first part. He also edited out parts of my response that made it possible to see what I meant. It’s not unexpected, but it’s still despicable.
I’m pointing out that God clearly set up nature to be understandable and predictable, and it is. There is no evidence He tinkers with it. And that fact that He does miracles for us, does not change that. Once you accept that nature is a special place He made for us, with particular rules, there is no longer a conflict between the natural and the miraculous.
At any rate, I expect Reggie won’t do it again, and if so, we won’t have that problem. Perhaps I’m
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
The cell membrane is a remarkably simple thing, a phospholipid bilayer. Eukaryotic membranes are considerably more complex, with a lot of transport proteins inserted into the layer, but the layer itself remains the same as it is in bacteria. There are probably a lot of ways the membrane could be better in terms of transport, immunity, and so on, but it is so essential to survival, that it seems natural selection is unable to produce anything better. The membrane itself has been remarkably unchanging over the billions of years of life on Earth, even if evolution has worked out a large number of attachments to it.
Learn about it here:
student.ccbcmd.edu/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit1/prostruct/cm.html
Learn about it here:
student.ccbcmd.edu/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit1/prostruct/cm.html
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
I don’t think he did that either, Barbarian. You’ve made quite a strong accusation against him that I think deserves an apology.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
How do you know how common it is? It could be happening every day all around us.
Would science be able to detect it? Not if it only looks for repeatable results that are not caused by a supernatural being.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
What about miracles where random events occur in an unlikely way. For example, events that are unpreditable in quantum theory or chaos theory, which God might work through to influence the natural world without actually breaking any natural laws. Are those minor or major miracles? (Consider this could range from very subtle things to amazing co-incidences that would appear to break the laws of physics).
- Status