- Status
A
Aloysium
Guest
Perhaps it could carry on a discussion as to the nature of its soul, temporal or eternal, I don’t see how that can be determined from a few odd bones.
E
edwest211
Guest
Speculation… (16 char.)
R
Rau
Guest
You conceded that it’s ok to study science. It appears you may wish to redefine science to incorporate metaphysics and theology.
G
goout
Guest
The emperor has no clothes.
E
edwest211
Guest
Pure, 100% unadulterated speculation. Look at what science “thinks” (maybe) about our last common ancestor.
“New research suggests…” means "New research that fits our preconceived notions suggests
Last common ancestor of humans and apes weighed about five kilograms
New research suggests that the last common ancestor of apes -- including great apes and humans -- was much smaller than previously thought, about the size of a gibbon. The findings, published today in the journal Nature Communications, are fundamental to understanding the evolution of the human...
www.sciencedaily.com
“New research suggests…” means "New research that fits our preconceived notions suggests
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Does this (name removed by moderator)ugn the rationale for the science or perhaps there are simply many atheists in science as there are in medicine, engineering and music?
I find it astounding that science which explores the amazing complexity of the world is accused by some of turning people into atheists or supporting their atheistic position. Were the believers only believers for so long as they could hold to a story of God creating in the manner we puny humans might imagine a God creates? Does God exist only if he conforms to the limits of our imagination? Finger snaps and bolts of lightning and it’s all done? Is that central to the Faith?
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
Ed.
We have a choice between Ed on the internet, and a well-established body of science that is recognized by the Church as a legitimate field of study that is “more than an hypothesis” (St JP 2 thanks).
Ed, I’m going with JP2 and mainstream science.
Apologies.
If you want credibility call the Vatican and get on the agenda. And maybe get a degree in biology, geology, genetics, etc…
I’m going with common sense. Man has landed on the moon, the earth revolves around the sun, the earth is more than 6000 years old, and there is not literal hammered metal dome in the sky.
What do you say again?
We have a choice between Ed on the internet, and a well-established body of science that is recognized by the Church as a legitimate field of study that is “more than an hypothesis” (St JP 2 thanks).
Ed, I’m going with JP2 and mainstream science.
Apologies.
If you want credibility call the Vatican and get on the agenda. And maybe get a degree in biology, geology, genetics, etc…
I’m going with common sense. Man has landed on the moon, the earth revolves around the sun, the earth is more than 6000 years old, and there is not literal hammered metal dome in the sky.
What do you say again?
G
goout
Guest
This is not true and you have absolutely zero basis for saying it, and that makes it slanderous.Rau:
Most scientists would agree.
You should retract in the interest of good faith discussion.
A
Aloysium
Guest
We do agree on that.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
You misunderstand me, I am speaking about the incompatibility with the ‘science’ and the Faith. Even if every one of the scientists was a devout Catholic, if they said the science was incompatible with the Faith, or that the Faith was incompatible with the science, I would listen. Perhaps not agree, as I perhaps do not agree now, but I listen. The ‘science’ increasingly seems at odds with Faith. The faithful contort themselves to fit the ‘science’, but I, and most of the scientists, agree that this is becoming increasingly impossible.
What are you talking about?
E
edwest211
Guest
The following was published in Biology textbooks, which, we are told, have nothing to say about God.
/Quote/ We can see this in current biology textbooks:
“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)
“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)
“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)
“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)
“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. Natural selection is totally blind to the future. “Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in Biology by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)
/Quote/ We can see this in current biology textbooks:
“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)
“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)
“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)
“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)
“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. Natural selection is totally blind to the future. “Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in Biology by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)
E
edwest211
Guest
“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)
“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)
[/quote]
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)
“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)
[/quote]
T
Techno2000
Guest
Speculation…
E
edwest211
Guest
“increasingly impossible.” What is? Let’s forget about the all-encompassing word “science” for a moment and concentrate on the word “evolution.”
Is there one practical scientific use for it?
Is there one practical scientific use for it?
Do you have the DNA to prove this?
I do not recall providing a sample, so at the very least you can only assume.
T
Techno2000
Guest
No need to write out (16 char.) just keep pressing the period key until you are at 16 or more dots.
I guess the case for evolution has finally broken completely.
The argument for it now seems to include a claim concerning God not being the creator.
Wow.
E
edwest211
Guest
Wow. (required number of characters)
Last edited:
- Status