R
rossum
Guest
Your ignorance of evolution is showing again, buffalo. Look up the words “Natural Selection”, which is not blind unguided chance.
rossum
- Status
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Who guides natural selection? Does natural selection have foresight?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Why do you say evolution fails here? Our physical form is the result of evolution. Our spiritual nature is not. Evolution does not attempt to explain the soul, nor does it need to do so. Evolution succeeds in the area in which it was intended to apply, and that is all.LeafByNiggle:
We are still beings with a dual nature.
Spiritual and physical.
And evolution fails here.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If people have lost their faith in revelation because of the intersection of revelation and science, the fault lies with people like you that have misrepresented revelation to such a large degree that people are forced to choose between your twisted version of revelation and what their reason tells them. You would do well to review the conflict that went on in the early Church between those that insisted that revelation demands that males be circumcised and those that wanted to relax that demand. Fortunately the Church decided that such a demand was not required. They eventually did the same thing with evolution. Get over it.
If we are to accept that we have a soul, then we accept that we have a part that could not evolve.
And if we are to accept what the church tells us of the soul, the body cannot live without it.
It seems a real problem.
Either you accept human beings evolving and reject the soul, or you accept the soul and know that humans did not evolve.
And if we are to accept what the church tells us of the soul, the body cannot live without it.
It seems a real problem.
Either you accept human beings evolving and reject the soul, or you accept the soul and know that humans did not evolve.
B
buffalo
Guest
or it could be that in the intersection, science, which is provisional, may be wrong…
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Science was once presented in a better way.
"Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the “death of God” that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.
“Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of “chance and necessity” are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.”
Christoph Schönborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal of Vienna.
"Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the “death of God” that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.
“Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of “chance and necessity” are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.”
Christoph Schönborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal of Vienna.
B
buffalo
Guest
Thanks edwest211
There are quite a few here who do not think we should challenge the science status quo. It is beyond reason why they are clutching so hard to a past paradigm. What do you think is the reason?
There are quite a few here who do not think we should challenge the science status quo. It is beyond reason why they are clutching so hard to a past paradigm. What do you think is the reason?
B
buffalo
Guest
And now we find on Dec 27, 2017 that Bacteria acquire resistance from competitors (what I have been saying for many years here)
In a recent publication in Cell Reports, Researchers from the Biozentrum of the University of Basel have demonstrated that some bacteria inject a toxic cocktail into their competitors causing cell lysis and death. Then, by integrating the released genetic material, which may also carry drug resistance genes, the predator cell can acquire antibiotic resistance.
Antibiotics and anti-microbial resistance have existed for a long time. They developed through the coexistence of microorganisms and enabled bacteria to defend themselves against enemies or to eliminate competitors. This is one of the ways in which bacteria can conquer and colonize new environmental niches. With the use of antibiotics in medicine, however, the natural ability to develop resistance has become a problem.
Catch the words NATURAL ABILITY? and Horizontal Gene Transfer?
In a recent publication in Cell Reports, Researchers from the Biozentrum of the University of Basel have demonstrated that some bacteria inject a toxic cocktail into their competitors causing cell lysis and death. Then, by integrating the released genetic material, which may also carry drug resistance genes, the predator cell can acquire antibiotic resistance.
Antibiotics and anti-microbial resistance have existed for a long time. They developed through the coexistence of microorganisms and enabled bacteria to defend themselves against enemies or to eliminate competitors. This is one of the ways in which bacteria can conquer and colonize new environmental niches. With the use of antibiotics in medicine, however, the natural ability to develop resistance has become a problem.
Bacteria acquire resistance from competitors
Bacteria not only develop resistance to antibiotics, they also can pick it up from their rivals. Researchers have demonstrated that some bacteria inject a toxic cocktail into their competitors causing cell lysis and death. Then, by integrating the released genetic material, which may also carry...
www.sciencedaily.com
Catch the words NATURAL ABILITY? and Horizontal Gene Transfer?
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Literally, no. In a sense - yes. It favors from among the available choices, just the right things. That’s a kind of foresight!
R
Rau
Guest
What you call “past”, most Call mainstream. If and when scientific understanding evolves to something new, the majority will move with it. For neither the new nor the old are in conflict with faith or carry any implications whatsoever for our salvation. Chill.
E
edwest211
Guest
You’re welcome.
It is simply a question of who will guide us? What is the source of truth? Science or God, presented as either Faith or as Divine Revelation. I have read enough to know that being permitted by so-called science to be or do anything is the driving goal. “Science will confirm me. Science will justify me. The State will validate me.” No. That’s not true.
"Pope Benedict XVI goes on to say:
Commentary by the Practical Catholic:
“Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression. Political correctness has asked us to abandon our value-laden language and to pick up a new language proper to the secular forum. However, this secular newspeak is value-laden against the traditional claims of the Western world and as such, is a poison rather than a new order. We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks for a democracy. The Holy Father offers us a visions of the State according to our Catholic heritage…”
It is simply a question of who will guide us? What is the source of truth? Science or God, presented as either Faith or as Divine Revelation. I have read enough to know that being permitted by so-called science to be or do anything is the driving goal. “Science will confirm me. Science will justify me. The State will validate me.” No. That’s not true.
"Pope Benedict XVI goes on to say:
Code:
"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]"“Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression. Political correctness has asked us to abandon our value-laden language and to pick up a new language proper to the secular forum. However, this secular newspeak is value-laden against the traditional claims of the Western world and as such, is a poison rather than a new order. We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks for a democracy. The Holy Father offers us a visions of the State according to our Catholic heritage…”
E
edwest211
Guest
That is very wrong.
R
Rau
Guest
Only for you because you insist God acts as you imagine.
B
buffalo
Guest
Sure they do. Eve came from the side of Adam.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This is not true. The Church has never said that physical biological life in a human is impossible with the simultaneous presence of a soul. You’re just making things up.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Ha ha! You couldn’t argue against simple Darwnism, so you try to make it an argument against “neo-Darwinsm” and “multiverse cosmology.” It reminds me of the arguments Harold Hill used against a pool hall and for a brass band in his song “we’ve got trouble, right here n River City” in The Music Man, where he talked about all the evil things that boys might do once the town gets a pool hall.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
And Christ rose from the dead. And he worked other miracles. What science does that necessitate we reject?
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
It was you who accused me of being against the Church. here [If people have lost their faith in revelation because of the intersection of revelation and science, the fault lies with people like you that have misrepresented revelation to such a large degree that people are forced to choose between your twisted version of revelation and what their reason tells them]
edwest211 delivers a perfect quote and you disparage him? Really?
Yet, over and over I give you science papers and references that clearly show cause to doubt the old paradigm.
edwest211 delivers a perfect quote and you disparage him? Really?
Yet, over and over I give you science papers and references that clearly show cause to doubt the old paradigm.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Science claims Adam and Eve didn’t know each other.
- Status