National Academies book on evolution

[reggieM]

God can’t possibly be everywhere or in everything! It would ruin science

I find that amazing. Just an incredible point to bring up, now that someone actually talked about God after hundreds of posts here. Just take a look – here’s the Catholic, hard-core evolutionist.

Barbarian you have presented God as such as I’ve mentioned in my message 443

That is, he reflects a Gnostic/creationist perspective.

I would sincerely like to hear more about your views on this wildleafblower.

You’re saying that God cannot be omnipresent because this would “ruin science”. I think many evolutionists would fully agree with you. God cannot be present in everything because that would ruin evolutionary theory.

I think you’re on to something, as I see it.

 

[wildleafblower]

I don’t see any contradictions between the fact that God and science are compatible, and the teaching of the Catechism:

Semantics is extremely important. No God isn’t compatible with SCIENCE. I’ve had this discussion before on another topic so I will repeat for the third time Science isn’t compatible with God. The Theory of Evolution is ‘science’. And faith is ‘an encounter with the living God’ which has been announced by a religious institution:

On December 25, 2005 BENEDICTUS PP. XVI stated, “Faith by its specific nature is an encounter with the living God—an encounter opening up new horizons extending beyond the sphere of reason. But it is also a purifying force for reason itself. From God’s standpoint, faith liberates reason from its blind spots and therefore helps it to be ever more fully itself. Faith enables reason to do its work more effectively and to see its proper object more clearly. This is where Catholic social doctrine has its place: it has no intention of giving the Church power over the State. Even less is it an attempt to impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to faith. Its aim is simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgment and attainment of what is just.” (ENCYCLICAL LETTER DEUS CARITAS EST OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEACONS MEN AND WOMEN RELIGIOUS AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL ON CHRISTIAN LOVE)

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

Based on the entirety of my statement above, faith isn’t compatible with science that is why it isn’t taught in public schools because the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is a separation of Church and State.

(p.s.Barbarian, you will have to read the whole document from the url that I have provided you to truly find out what the Living God is.

The following remains in effect:

Barbarian I stand behind my message 443. You provided a url to a website that isn’t from the Vatican:Holy See. And you still have negleted to read the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the new Catechism which are the teachings of the church. You might try to understand the truth about science by acknowledging Pope John Paul II statement “Science is Truth” and by reading the Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCHPart One, The Profession of Faith, Section One *
*“I believe” – “We believe”.

1. Why is there **no contradiction ****between faith and science?

159 Though faith is above reason, there can never be a contradiction between faith and science because both originate in God. It is God himself who gives to us the light both of reason and of faith.

“I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe.” (Saint Augustine)

An omnipresent God doesn’t exist in the THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The word omnipresent doesn’t exist. Barbarian you have presented God as such as I’ve mentioned in my message 443. Semantically you have that is.

**The Compendium **of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is only located on the VATICAN:Holy See website. It gives further information about the new CATECHISM. The NEW AMERICAN BIBLE IS THERE TOO!

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I don’t see any contradictions between the fact that God and science are compatible, and the teaching of the Catechism:

Semantics is extremely important. No God isn’t compatible with SCIENCE.

Of course He is. Nature is His creation after all. Science is merely the study of it. How could they be incompatible?

I’ve had this discussion before on another topic so I will repeat for the third time Science isn’t compatible with God. The Theory of Evolution is ‘science’. And faith is ‘an encounter with the living God’ which has been announced by a religious institution:

Semantics. Science isn’t faith, but it is compatible with it.

Based on the entirety of my statement above, faith isn’t compatible with science that is why it isn’t taught in public schools because the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is a separation of Church and State.

This goes back to the confusion I mentioned earlier. The fact that science and faith are compatible does not mean that they are the same thing. And faith isn’t taught in public schools because we do have a separation of Church and state. And faith isn’t taught in science classes because faith and science are different things.

Geology and philosphy are two different things also, but they are compatible.

(p.s.Barbarian, you will have to read the whole document from the url that I have provided you to truly find out what the Living God is.

I would have thought that every Catholic knows what the Living God is. What do you think Paul means when he says that God is living in you?

Barbarian I stand behind my message 443. You provided a url to a website that isn’t from the Vatican:Holy See. And you still have negleted to read the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the new Catechism which are the teachings of the church.

I posted that from the Compendium of the Cathchism in the Vatican Archives. That seems to me to be authoritative. If not, what is?

You might try to understand the truth about science by acknowledging Pope John Paul II statement “Science is Truth” and by reading the Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCHPart One, The Profession of Faith, Section One

You mean this?:

**Though faith is above reason, there can never be a contradiction between faith and science because both originate in God. It is God himself who gives to us the light both of reason and of faith. **
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#Mans%20Capacity%20for%20God

This clearly asserts that God and science are compatible.

An omnipresent God doesn’t exist in the THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

I’m trying to find anyone here who said so. You do understand that “omnipotent” does not mean “omnipresent”, do you not?

The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is only located on the VATICAN:Holy See website. It gives further information about the new CATECHISM.

Where do you think I got that statement?

The NEW AMERICAN BIBLE IS THERE TOO!

Very nice. Where did you get that “omnipresent” idea?

 

[surgei]

An omnipresent God doesn’t exist in the THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The word omnipresent doesn’t exist. Barbarian you have presented God as such as I’ve mentioned in my message 443. Semantically you have that is.

**The Compendium **of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is only located on the VATICAN:Holy See website. It gives further information about the new CATECHISM. The NEW AMERICAN BIBLE IS THERE TOO!

O Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, everywhere present and filling all things, treasury of blessings and giver of light, come and dwell within us cleanse us of all that defiles us and save our souls o Gracious Lord.

omnipresent is defined as being everywhere present at the same time. thefreedictionary.com/omnipresent

The above quote: is how the Church prays. If you think she believes other than how she prays, you are mistaken.

 

[Mersenne]

Evolution makes very little sense to me. The more I read here, the less sensible it appears. And I’m not just mentioning this to bother you (and I honestly don’t want to bother you) but to let everyone know. The idea that radiation, mutation, environmental pressures and genetic drift causing modern life, is a bit out of the realm of possibility

There you go again, assuming your lay opinion trumps scientific fact. But of course, you NEVER do that, right ed?

 

[edwest2]

There you go again, assuming your lay opinion trumps scientific fact. But of course, you NEVER do that, right ed?

“scientific fact”? There are very few regarding evolution. Sure, we have bones of old dead things but that’s about it. Evolution is not a fact, it is a storytelling device. The biology tetbook is ideological with a few facts thrown in. I will not just say yes to evolution. Based on scientific information, it’s looking like the earth and the universe are a lot younger than science believes. The Church teaches that the universe has a finite age. Divine revelation is more important than some scientific statements since they come directly from the Creator.

Internet Opinion Culture is corrosive since it can elevate any opinion to fact status and confuse the unwary. I’m tired of having my trust abused. I know a marketing campaign when I see one. The current New Atheism is putting Man Created God on buses because their religion, science, told them our genes created god while we were going through a “primitive” phase. Yet modern equipment is incapable of building a small scale pyramid from a period that predates the birth of Jesus.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mersenne]

common decent is a fact.

 

[buffalo]

common decent is a fact.

http://kolbecenter.org/graphics/hydrogencolor.jpg

 

[eucharisteo]

Barbarian observes:
I don’t see any contradictions between the fact that God and science are compatible, and the teaching of the Catechism:

Maybe I missed something. But, if I understand correctly, what the other guy/gal said is correct. God and SCIENCE aren’t compatible. Nuance. What he/she may be saying is that Science does not necessitate a lack of faith in God. But to reduce God to SCIENCE like this, in spite of its intention is just vulgar or some other good word choice. GOD created the universe, probably through SCIENCE, if you ask the scientific community. However, not accepting the SCIENCE of evolution really boils down to faith in some ways. How trustworthy are scientists that are trying to make the all might dollar? The imperical evidence speaks for itself, but there is so much that is involved that not even the scientific community agree. The modern accepted theory on evelolution is limited to a mainstream of scientists, not all. Be honest about that. Also, if someone wants to believe the world is flat. who really cares. I’ve known people like that in my past. As long as their not teaching science its fine with me.

I think that it is objective to say the GOD and SCIENCE are compatible for those that believe in GOD. This is like saying that if GOD isn’t compatible with science then God must be wrong and therefore we ought reject GOD. Semantics. The preferred would be to say that Science is compatible with faith God or a belief in God. Just a thought.

 

[Aramis]

mainstream science overwhelmingly agrees on the occurrence of evolution; what the don’t agree on is the operational level of selection pressures, the nominal rates of change, mechanisms of mutation dominance, etc… the niggling details of the mechanics.

Even a lot of non-mainstream scientists agree some form of change over time occurs… but have weird other beliefs putting them outside the mainstream.

 

[Mersenne]

http://kolbecenter.org/graphics/hydrogencolor.jpg

Of course, that’s not what scientists believe at all, that’s just your silly way of trying very hard to stay in denial about the fact of evolution. And of course, you have to be trying to. You must know by now, on some level, with all the facts that have been presented to you in dozens of threads, that evolution is definitely a fact. But you plug your ears just as tightly as you can, and ignore the blindingly obvious.

 

[buffalo]

Of course, that’s not what scientists believe at all, that’s just your silly way of trying very hard to stay in denial about the fact of evolution. And of course, you have to be trying to. You must know by now, on some level, with all the facts that have been presented to you in dozens of threads, that evolution is definitely a fact. But you plug your ears just as tightly as you can, and ignore the blindingly obvious.

You believe everything comes from nothing, correct?

 

[Mersenne]

You believe everything comes from nothing, correct?

no? do you think everything has to come from somewhere?

 

[eucharisteo]

mainstream science overwhelmingly agrees on the occurrence of evolution; what the don’t agree on is the operational level of selection pressures, the nominal rates of change, mechanisms of mutation dominance, etc… the niggling details of the mechanics.

Even a lot of non-mainstream scientists agree some form of change over time occurs… but have weird other beliefs putting them outside the mainstream.

In the early church and for 100’s of years Aryanism was the belief of the majority of bishops. But it was heresy to believe such things. The hypostatic union was the real teaching and it took many years of resistance by orhtodox Christians to fight off such heresy.

Not that science is necessarily the same, but there is some truth to it. Modern scientist also argue that a baby isn’t a baby unless born, or something along those lines.

Moral of the story: be careful about using phrases like “main stream” or “majority of” etc. whether or not someone believes in evolution is of no consequence to me. However, when someone tries to argue that God did not have his hand in it is simply heresy.

 

[reggieM]

Hydrogen-to-humans is the standard evolutionary story.

 

[Mersenne]

Hydrogen-to-humans is the standard evolutionary story.

Evolution has little to do with pre-life conditions. Even if it did, characterizing our knowledge of the world as “given enough time, hydrogen turns into people” is very inaccurate. No one believes, for example, that if you left hydrogen in a box for long enough you’d have people.

 

[reggieM]

Evolution has little to do with pre-life conditions.

How do you know that?

Even if it did, characterizing our knowledge of the world as “given enough time, hydrogen turns into people” is very inaccurate. No one believes, for example, that if you left hydrogen in a box for long enough you’d have people.

In order to show that the claim was “inaccurate” you had to change it by saying that we “left hydrogen in a box”. That is a manipulative technique. It didn’t say that – but merely that “given enough time” hydrogen turns in to people.

It’s very easy to refute a claim that “no one” believes something. I merely need to show you one who does. But in this case, there are several who believe that.

smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/phenom_dec95.html
The history of the Universe has been summed up thusly: “Hydrogen is a light, odorless gas, which, given enough time, turns into people.” When our universe began, it consisted mostly of hydrogen. That gas condensed into galaxies of stars, in whose cores heat and pressure fused atoms into heavier elements, including those necessary for life. Some of those stars exploded, spewing the heavier elements out into space. New stars and planets formed, including our own. On one of those planets, life appeared.

there are many others. You could search the string “given enough time”.

astronomy.org/astronomy-survival/ques13.html
98. What is left after the detonation is a core of nuclear material about 10 miles in diameter known as a neutron star, surrounded by an expanding cloud of gas containing the elements that can make other planetary systems, stars, or even, if given enough time, human beings.

 

[Mersenne]

How do you know that?

Anyone with a basic elementary school level of knowledge about evolution would know that. Evolution is a process of change within life. Though the concepts have often been used in other fields with similar mathematical properties, strictly speaking, evolution deals with how life changes. It doesn’t really address the origin of life or the origin of heavier elements.

In order to show that the claim was “inaccurate” you had to change it by saying that we “left hydrogen in a box”. That is a manipulative technique. It didn’t say that – but merely that “given enough time” hydrogen turns in to people.

I didn’t change the claim, I used the box as an example. Thus why I said “for example” But you know that, you’re just being dishonest. The point was the hydrogen is the stuff that we all originally came from, but that’s not to say that hydrogen will always turn into people.

It’s very easy to refute a claim that “no one” believes something. I merely need to show you one who does. But in this case, there are several who believe that.

smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/phenom_dec95.html
The history of the Universe has been summed up thusly: “Hydrogen is a light, odorless gas, which, given enough time, turns into people.” When our universe began, it consisted mostly of hydrogen. That gas condensed into galaxies of stars, in whose cores heat and pressure fused atoms into heavier elements, including those necessary for life. Some of those stars exploded, spewing the heavier elements out into space. New stars and planets formed, including our own. On one of those planets, life appeared.

there are many others. You could search the string “given enough time”.

That’s called a joke. The world we live in now adays, when a scientist cannot make a tongue in cheek remark without some willfully ignorant person taking it out of context and pushing it as a serious scientific opinion.

astronomy.org/astronomy-survival/ques13.html
98. What is left after the detonation is a core of nuclear material about 10 miles in diameter known as a neutron star, surrounded by an expanding cloud of gas containing the elements that can make other planetary systems, stars, or even, if given enough time, human beings.

Which is, of course, a very different opinion from what you’re pushing. “Can make” versus “will make”

 

[tjm190]

Not that science is necessarily the same, but there is some truth to it. Modern scientist also argue that a baby isn’t a baby unless born, or something along those lines.

When a baby is a baby is a philosophical question, not a scientific one

 

[reggieM]

Anyone with a basic elementary school level of knowledge about evolution would know that. Evolution is a process of change within life. Though the concepts have often been used in other fields with similar mathematical properties, strictly speaking, evolution deals with how life changes. It doesn’t really address the origin of life or the origin of heavier elements."

Anyone with a basic elementary school level of knowledge should be able to understand the question I posed without attempting to change the topic.
You claimed that evolution has little to do with pre-life conditions. This assumes that you know what pre-life conditions were and how they contributed to the origin of life in the first place.

So again, how do you know that pre-life conditions did not have a profound impact on how evolutionary processes emerged? What were those conditions, how did they create life, and why does this not have any influence on the origin and development of evolutionary processes?

By the way, you’re mentioning required educational levels here (and implying that I do not possess them), so what are your scientific qualifications?