S
Seamus_Sully
Guest
Is there rational proof for a superior being?
- Status
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Scientists don’t discuss God as scientists for the same reason auto mechancs don’t discuss sub-atomic physics. It’s outside their field.
T
Titus
Guest
Yes. But not scientific proof, which would require something like you can see him, etc.
S
Seamus_Sully
Guest
Titus
Thank you for your answer.
I am not trying to be cute.
I am not playing.
I am prayerfully serious.
The questions that perplex me are: The lines that divide inanimate being to animated being, and no being to being.
I hold a belief that some scientists believe the line from inanimate being to animated being was crossed, it must have been done by evolution (self-directed and by chance).
If God created the universe, perhaps that line was not crossed.
Perhaps God made things alive and not alive.
If that divide was crossed, I do not believe it could have been absolutely self-directed.
Again, I am prayerfully serious.
I am not a sophist. Well, I hope and pray that I am not a sophist.
Please answer me. I like a gentle conversation. When I offended, I surely did not mean to do so.
I actually love science and math.
As a philosohper, theologian and historian, I make use of my knowledge of math and science. I have limits in all of the above mentioned areas. I am not a scholar, but a serious student.
THANK YOU!!!
Thank you for your answer.
I am not trying to be cute.
I am not playing.
I am prayerfully serious.
The questions that perplex me are: The lines that divide inanimate being to animated being, and no being to being.
I hold a belief that some scientists believe the line from inanimate being to animated being was crossed, it must have been done by evolution (self-directed and by chance).
If God created the universe, perhaps that line was not crossed.
Perhaps God made things alive and not alive.
If that divide was crossed, I do not believe it could have been absolutely self-directed.
Again, I am prayerfully serious.
I am not a sophist. Well, I hope and pray that I am not a sophist.
Please answer me. I like a gentle conversation. When I offended, I surely did not mean to do so.
I actually love science and math.
As a philosohper, theologian and historian, I make use of my knowledge of math and science. I have limits in all of the above mentioned areas. I am not a scholar, but a serious student.
THANK YOU!!!
S
Seamus_Sully
Guest
Scientists don’t discuss God as scientists for the same reason auto mechancs don’t discuss sub-atomic physics. It’s outside their field.
The analogy that I will use is: The auto mechanics should listen to the engineers.
The bike racers should listen physics.
If God created the world, then human reason and science should make use of that knowledge.
The analogy that I will use is: The auto mechanics should listen to the engineers.
The bike racers should listen physics.
If God created the world, then human reason and science should make use of that knowledge.
T
Titus
Guest
R
rossum
Guest
God is outside the boundaries of science. There is no God in the equations of General Relativity. There is no God in the equations of magnetohydrodynamics. There is no God in the equations that engineers use to build bridges. There is no God in the equations of evolution. Evolution is just like any other science, it does not involve God. As soon as you involve God you are outside the boundaries of science and into theology or philosophy.
Science does not reject God, it just says that God is outside of the boundaries of science and hence science must remain silent on the matter. Silence is not rejection.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution-as-fact is the change in frequencies of alleles in the genome of a population. Evolution-as-theory is the scientific explanation for this observed fact. The explanation does not include God bacause no scientific explanation for anything ever includes God. If you want to include God then you should look for a theological or a philosophical explanation.
rossum
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Or to put it another way, Evolution is what God did. The Theory of Evolution is man’s explanation of how He did it.
S
Seamus_Sully
Guest
Titus
Science seems to imply that once being was without life.
Now being has life.
Some time ago, the movement from no life to life was crossed.
If God created being, both inaminate and animate at the same time–then the line was never crossed.
Side note about Greek–Galatian 5, 6–“energeo”: what does it mean?
Could it mean love gives energy or life to faith?
Thanks
Science seems to imply that once being was without life.
Now being has life.
Some time ago, the movement from no life to life was crossed.
If God created being, both inaminate and animate at the same time–then the line was never crossed.
Side note about Greek–Galatian 5, 6–“energeo”: what does it mean?
Could it mean love gives energy or life to faith?
Thanks
S
Seamus_Sully
Guest
rossum
Thanks for the great distinctin on silence and rejection.
I hope to never forget it.
THANKS!!!
Thanks for the great distinctin on silence and rejection.
I hope to never forget it.
THANKS!!!
S
Seamus_Sully
Guest
When one looks at nature one sees the magnificent regularity of its laws.
If on primative earth life began, why don’t we see life spring out of the lifeless matter today?
I hope that question makes some sense.
Nature manifests regularity.
I am wondering if life should not be evolving regularly even today, that is, life from lifeless matter.
I know that I do not know, but it seems that the earth is more favorable today for life coming into existence than on primative earth. I know that I might not be correct, but it seems to me that it might be correct.
Well, it is just a idea or question.
If on primative earth life began, why don’t we see life spring out of the lifeless matter today?
I hope that question makes some sense.
Nature manifests regularity.
I am wondering if life should not be evolving regularly even today, that is, life from lifeless matter.
I know that I do not know, but it seems that the earth is more favorable today for life coming into existence than on primative earth. I know that I might not be correct, but it seems to me that it might be correct.
Well, it is just a idea or question.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Perhaps because conditions on earth today are different than when life first began. And who knows? Maybe it is still happening. We know very little about the depths of the oceans, for example.
You seem to forget that even in Genesis, life comes from lifeless matter.
Peace
Tim
R
rossum
Guest
One possible reason is that when that first primitive new life with all of five minutes experience of the world is noticed by a bacterium with billions of years of evolution behind it the new life will get gobbled up very quickly. Also the chemistry of the world has changed since the origin of life.
Quite possibly it is, but it would have to be somewhere away from any existing life that would see it as a tasty snack. It could certainly be happening on extrasolar planets.
Probably not. Primitive earth had no free oxygen which seems to be a better environment for producing organic molecules - oxygen is very corrosive and breaks down such molecules unless it is well controlled. The oxygen in our atmosphere is the result of biological action - photosynthesis. All life on earth had to learn to cope with oxygen or to retreat to environments without oxygen. See Oxygen Catastrophe for more on this.
rossum
T
Titus
Guest
I see what you mean, I think. All the theology makes me queasy, I admit. I will check out ‘energeo’. It’s not a terribly common word, anyway.
F
freesoulhope
Guest
Animals and organisms rarely eat there own kind. This being the case, dont you find it rather odd that any organism that doesn’t have a “concious agenda” should choose to be “distintive” of what it consumes?
If you do, then doesn’t this fact suppose design? Rather “Design Through Evolution”
If you do, then doesn’t this fact suppose design? Rather “Design Through Evolution”
T
Titus
Guest
Not necessarily, given that some do, e.g ants, and eating your own kind may not be very nutritious.
D
daniel87
Guest
I know as Catholics we should not argue about it, as both accounts depend on a creator but could someone give me the Catholic views the are open to the theory on these:
- God created the world in 7 days, man on the 6th
- genealogy of our Lord Jesus contains only a few dozen generations, how could these extend over millions (or billions) of years to Adam the first man
- death came through sin, yet evolution needs constant death
1 Corinthians 15:21: “For certainly, death came through a man”.
thanks for your help and God bless you
E
edwest2
Guest
Here is the information you are looking for:
catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp
Allow me to highlight a few parts by quoting them:
It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis I as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.
It is equally impermissable to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2-3) as a fiction.
The acount of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
God bless,
Ed
catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp
Allow me to highlight a few parts by quoting them:
It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis I as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.
It is equally impermissable to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2-3) as a fiction.
The acount of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
God bless,
Ed
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Hmmm…that’s interesting.
Is there any information available for this?
I have to confess that I still have my own doubts concerning the theory of evolution. It seems to me, in my own opinion, that random mutations and selective pressures would still be hard-pressed to produce the multitude of life-forms we see today.
However, if cross-breading to produce an entirely new species were introduced into the formula, I think that the theory of evolution would become more credulous to those who doubt.
Personally, if evolution can indeed produce new species distinct from other species, I think it would most likely occur when two symbiotic species simultaniously mutate and the environment favors their mutual bonding.
For example, take a look as the relationship between displyed in this article called Mind-Controlling Wasps and Zombie Spiders.
In short, it seems to me that, if the conditions were favorable, some kind of symbiotic mutation between these two species could result in a totally new type of species this is totally distinquished from either parent.
I’ve often wondered why God forbid us from cross breading in passages like this found in Leviticus 19:19.
Perhaps the reason he has forbidden this is because he is the creator and we are not to play with his design in this way. Interestingly enough, here’s some examples of some modern hybrids.
) that spiders had been around for 300 MY.- Status