Many Adams and Eves?

[edwest2]

No theory has been proven. That’s not how science works.

Respectfully, that is a nonsense statement.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ThomasToo]

Point 1: Hmm, maybe. It depends. Does he go on any anti-religious rants in this book, because then I’m not interested.

Not as I recall.

Point 2: What are you talking about? I said I believed in the theory. What more do you want me to say?

Also, I find it highly unlikely that there are soulless humans running around. In fact, I would think that this contradicts Church teaching. But maybe I’m wrong.

I more so meant you ‘but it is not proven, it’s a theory’ comment. I think a lot of people don’t quite understand the scientific and technical meaning of the word ‘theory.’ My apologies for the confusion.

It does contradict Church teaching but I don’t think souls are a scientific subject and are, frankly, not the evolutionist’s concern.

 

[ThomasToo]

I can prove gravity any time I want by dropping something. In a court of law, evidence is used to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. The statement that science can’t prove anything is bogus. A nuclear bomb goes off – which proves nothing? Please. Stop this.

You can prove that things fall on Earth but that doesn’t say anything about gravity as such. You cannot prove that gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of the universe just by dropping something on Earth. So too, you cannot prove what equation dictates the gravitational force simply by dropping something on Earth.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t believe that. It doesn’t make sense. I can prove gravity all I want by dropping something. In a court of law, evidence is used to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thanks to some here, I have doubts about evolution.

God bless,
Ed

It makes absolute perfect sense. I’m going to try to explain it to you again.

Scientific method is a way of looking at things. That’s all it is. It’s most certainly not the only way and maybe it isn’t the best way in some cases. But it is a method and it is specific as to what it can and cannot do. To say that there can be proof when using scientific method makes as much sense as saying a circle is a square. It’s part of the definition of scientific method that there is *always *uncertainty. ALWAYS! Even in gravity. I already responded to your ball scenario on the MM and the Church thread. You didn’t respond there, so I’ll repeat what I said:

I can’t see your ball, Ed. I can’t even see you. All I see are words on a computer screen. You can’t prove gravity exists. You can’t even prove you exist.

You don’t understand scientific method and I see no attempt on your part to even try to understand it. Your little world is very neat; black and white, with no grey areas. That is not the real world.

Now you’ve brought in courts of law? What does that have to do with scientific method? In a court of law a preponderance of evidence can perhaps lead to or away from a reasonable doubt. So what? Are you actually saying that a preponderance of evidence is proof? I do hope you realize that proof means beyond a shadow of a doubt.

There are people on Death Row who are not guilty of the crimes they supposedly committed, which is why The Innocence Project was formed. Yet it seems to me that you think these innocent people have been proven guilty because of a preponderance of evidence. But they’re innocent! How do you reconcile that?

You can walk around “proving” things using your mangled idea of scientific method all you want, but frankly it doesn’t make you look intelligent and makes me much less prone to believe anything else you believe.

I have had scientific method pounded and branded into my brain from my first science class all the way through my orals for my M.A. You can’t prove anything using scientific method, Ed. You can’t. It’s not meant for that.

So, please tell me: how does dropping a ball PROVE that gravity exists?

-----PROUD TO BE THE DAUGHTER OF A PLUMBER-----

 

[LittleSoldier]

Respectfully, that is a nonsense statement.

God bless,
Ed

Respectfully, your statement above is nonsense.

-----PROUD to be the daughter of a PLUMBER-----

 

[LittleSoldier]

I can prove gravity any time I want by dropping something. In a court of law, evidence is used to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. The statement that science can’t prove anything is bogus. A nuclear bomb goes off – which proves nothing? Please. Stop this.

God bless,
Ed

Please? Stop what? Discussing scientific method? Why does it bother you so? You can’t prove gravity any time you want using scientific method. You just can’t.

Why do you feel you have the right to determine what scientific method can do? What are your qualifications for changing scientific method to allow the possibility of proof?

I’m not in the habit of posting “bogus” statements. Are you a scientist? What field? What degree(s)?

-----PROUD TO BE THE DAUGHTER OF A PLUMBER-----

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Perhaps people do misunderstand what theory means. But my post didn’t indicate any misunderstanding at all, at least from my POV. I merely said that evolution is a theory I believe (or more accurately, happen to suscribe too). I’ve seen theories besides evolution, so I can’t say it’s the only theory. And it’s not proven. So nothing I said was wrong.

I explained what I said before badly, Ed…by humanoid people, I mean humans with human DNA but not human “beings”. Then God selected two and gave them a soul, and their descendants evolved into homo sapiens. The rest of that group, perhaps the neanderthals, died out during the ice age.

 

[StAnastasia]

I can prove gravity any time I want by dropping something. In a court of law, evidence is used to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. The statement that science can’t prove anything is bogus. A nuclear bomb goes off – which proves nothing? Please. Stop this. God bless, Ed

Ed, you need a primer on scientific epistemology. Dropping something does not prove the theory of gravity.

 

[edwest2]

Perhaps people do misunderstand what theory means. But my post didn’t indicate any misunderstanding at all, at least from my POV. I merely said that evolution is a theory I believe (or more accurately, happen to suscribe too). I’ve seen theories besides evolution, so I can’t say it’s the only theory. And it’s not proven. So nothing I said was wrong.

I explained what I said before badly, Ed…by humanoid people, I mean humans with human DNA but not human “beings”. Then God selected two and gave them a soul, and their descendants evolved into homo sapiens. The rest of that group, perhaps the neanderthals, died out during the ice age.

I don’t agree with that. Here’s why. If God selected two then what happened to the rest? Are there human beings today that do not have souls? Modern human beings have Neanderthal DNA, which simply means humans and Neanderthals could breed, which tells me Neanderthals were fully human.

The theory of evolution has not been proven. That is Pope Benedict talking, not me. Today, I trust the words of the Church and the Pope more than the conclusions of too many scientists. It is Catholic teaching that tells us that two real people, Adam and Eve, were the parents of all of us. Anything else is just speculation.

God bless,
Ed

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t agree with that. Here’s why. If God selected two then what happened to the rest? Are there human beings today that do not have souls? Modern human beings have Neanderthal DNA, which simply means humans and Neanderthals could breed, which tells me Neanderthals were fully human.

The theory of evolution has not been proven. That is Pope Benedict talking, not me. Today, I trust the words of the Church and the Pope more than the conclusions of too many scientists. It is Catholic teaching that tells us that two real people, Adam and Eve, were the parents of all of us. Anything else is just speculation.

God bless,
Ed

**Once again, Ed, the theory of evolution will never be proven because you cannot prove anything using scientific method.

You are obviously not a scientist. If you were you would know this.

You are denying Truth and don’t appear to be willing to even investigate what the scientists here are telling you. It seems like you put your hands over your ears and yell “I can’t hear you!! I can’t hear you!! La la la la la…I can’t hear you!!”

You’re not helping your defense of Catholicism when you refuse to accept the fact that scientific method does not allow for proof.

Remember Newton? He had a bit to say on gravity (a subject which you appear to like though you don’t understand it).

I’m going to defer to him on this with one of his quotes:

“Sir, I have investigated the subject. You have not. I do not propose to waste my time discussing it with you.”

-----Proud to be the daughter of a Plumber!!!-----**

 

[LittleSoldier]

Ed, you need a primer on scientific epistemology. Dropping something does not prove the theory of gravity.

I honestly don’t think he cares. If he did he would investigate scientific method. He’s not a scientist - he can’t be.

He most likely will be spouting the same words for the rest of his life - “I can prove gravity anytime I want by dropping something” and “You can’t prove anything with science? Nonsense.”

I wonder what he thinks happens when a ball bounces up - I guess that proves gravity has shut off.

What he says is absolute, pure, unadulterated nonsense.

 

[StAnastasia]

I honestly don’t think he cares. If he did he would investigate scientific method. He’s not a scientist - he can’t be.

 

[buffalo]

I honestly don’t think he cares. If he did he would investigate scientific method. He’s not a scientist - he can’t be.

He most likely will be spouting the same words for the rest of his life - “I can prove gravity anytime I want by dropping something” and “You can’t prove anything with science? Nonsense.”

I wonder what he thinks happens when a ball bounces up - I guess that proves gravity has shut off.

What he says is absolute, pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Dropping a ball yields testable, measurable and predictable results every time.

 

[StAnastasia]

Dropping a ball yields testable, measurable and predictable results every time.

Of course. But you don’t know it’s gravity doing the trick, rather than the divine will that balls should fall at the same rate.

 

[edwest2]

LittleSoldier;6620246:

Understood, and this has been his position all along. My concern – as an educator who represents science to religious believers and religion to scientists – is that unchurched science people look at a claim like this (“evolution is not yet proven”) and throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. They see a Catholic who is scientifically uneducated pronouncing on science, and they assume this is what Catholicism must be all about: the belief system of uneducated people. That lessens the appeal of Catholicism to scientifically educated people.

Quite true.

I suppose he could argue that gravity works sometimes but not at other times.

I know.

Lessens the appeal? Go ahead. Throw a “Come on in! We believe in evolution!” banner over all Catholic Churches. Go ahead and have a greeter at the door of every Church to make sure every Catholic who enters has the “correct” scientific views, and deny entry to those who do not.

God forbid,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

To buffalo -

Do you have a copy of Rankings of Churches and/or Belief Systems based on Their Scientific Beliefs? I seem to have misplaced mine.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ThomasToo]

Dropping a ball yields testable, measurable and predictable results every time.

Not always. Not if, for example, you did so in outer space a sufficient distance from a planetary body.

Remember, gravity is a universal phenomenon and dropping a ball in one small part of the universe (i.e. on Earth) does not prove the universality of the principle. It could simply be that there is no gravity and Earth just sucks.

 

[buffalo]

Not always. Not if, for example, you did so in outer space a sufficient distance from a planetary body.

Remember, gravity is a universal phenomenon and dropping a ball in one small part of the universe (i.e. on Earth) does not prove the universality of the principle. It could simply be that there is no gravity and Earth just sucks.

You know what I meant…

 

[ThomasToo]

You know what I meant…

No, I don’t. You said dropping a ball on Earth proves gravity and it simply doesn’t.

 

[buffalo]

No, I don’t. You said dropping a ball on Earth proves gravity and it simply doesn’t.

where did I state it proves gravity?