Questions for Evolution-Deniers

  • Thread starter Thread starter NowAgnostic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(3) It appears the universe will run down in an entropic heat death some tens of billions of years from now. That would be a circumstance not irrelevant to a theological discussion that has often involved speculation on the end of time.
Agreed.
Yes, it would be irrelevant to end time theological discussions. Time will end when Christ returns. Christ is not limited by “When the universe dies the heat death in billions of years.” Nobody but the Father knows when the end is. You really think the scientists have it pegged with the 10’s of billions of years number?
“Terrestrial timetable?” I think the better question to think about is God’s timetable. Which has nothing to do with our theories of cosmic expansion.** If a new “settled science” theory came to be that showed that the universe was eternal, would that put God’s plans to a halt?**

**In general, you seem to measure Catholic teaching , which comes from God, on how well it matches up with the Truth of Science, which comes from man. **Especially when it comes to this end times stuff, that seems to me that you have things back-assward.

It is quite ironic that you frequently appeal to “settled science”, but seem to think that almost anything the Catholic church teaches is fair game.
My question was " If a new “settled science” theory came to be that showed that the universe was eternal, would that put God’s plans to a halt?"

Use your imagination. And then answer yes or no.

Actually, now that I think about it, you have answered the question. You need to wait and see what Science says about the matter first. Only then, will you be able to say that God’s plans are halted or not.
What is a “settled science” theory? I’m not familiar with “settled science.”
You use the term yourself a lot. Things like “gravity” and “plate tectonics”, and “evolution.” Things about which there is no scientific controversy. Things which 100% of scientists, and other “educated people” agree on. But the exact definition shouldn’t even be necessary for you to answer the question. I’ll give you the answer, since you are having trouble with it.

We don’t need to know what science says or doesn’t say, “settled” or not, to know that the end of all things is controlled by God’s timetable, not the universe’s “heat death”. Jesus says that no one knows when the end time will come except the Father. I believe him. You instead look to science for the answer. That’s a strange direction to turn for a “Catholic Theologian.”
 
You use the term yourself a lot. Things like “gravity” and “plate tectonics”, and “evolution.” Things about which there is no scientific controversy. Things which 100% of scientists, and other “educated people” agree on…We don’t need to know what science says or doesn’t say, “settled” or not, to know that the end of all things is controlled by God’s timetable, not the universe’s “heat death”. Jesus says that no one knows when the end time will come except the Father. I believe him. You instead look to science for the answer. That’s a strange direction to turn for a “Catholic Theologian.”
I’ve never used the term “settled science.” All scientific positions are provisional, subject to change. Theology that ignores the world is doomed to irrelevance. Look at how no one takes seriously the geocentrism championed by some.

You are lying when you say I “look to science for theological answers”; I do no such thing, and you know it. I look to theology to articulate the timeless truths of faith in the context of contemporary thought. To fail to to that is to fail to engage in the perennial hermeneutical task that is theology.

StAnastasia
 
Not really. Intelligence as we know it requires Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, some other elements, and electricity. It probably does not need Plutonium, Gold, Americium, or Fox News (intelligence is probably incompatible with the latter).
Heres one list of some of the elements needed;

Element Mass of element
in a 70-kg person
oxygen 43 kg
carbon 16 kg
hydrogen 7 kg
nitrogen 1.8 kg
calcium 1.0 kg
phosphorus 780 g
potassium 140 g
sulfur 140 g
sodium 100 g
chlorine 95 g
magnesium 19 g
iron 4.2 g
fluorine 2.6 g
zinc 2.3 g
silicon 1.0 g
rubidium 0.68 g
strontium 0.32 g
bromine 0.26 g
lead 0.12 g
copper 72 mg
aluminum 60 mg
cadmium 50 mg
cerium 40 mg
barium 22 mg
iodine 20 mg
tin 20 mg
titanium 20 mg
boron 18 mg
nickel 15 mg
selenium 15 mg
chromium 14 mg
manganese 12 mg
arsenic 7 mg
lithium 7 mg
cesium 6 mg
mercury 6 mg
germanium 5 mg
molybdenum 5 mg
cobalt 3 mg
antimony 2 mg
silver 2 mg
niobium 1.5 mg
zirconium 1 mg
lanthanium 0.8 mg
gallium 0.7 mg
tellurium 0.7 mg
yttrium 0.6 mg
bismuth 0.5 mg
thallium 0.5 mg
indium 0.4 mg
gold 0.2 mg
scandium 0.2 mg
tantalum 0.2 mg
vanadium 0.11 mg
thorium 0.1 mg
uranium 0.1 mg
samarium 50 µg
beryllium 36 µg
tungsten 20 µg

0% Fox News
 
I’ve never used the term “settled science.”
It’s a term in common use here. If you never used the exact words, you have used the concept. Which I defined for you. Google your own posts for “gravity” & “plate tectonics” and I’m sure you’ll find some in which you declare that evolution is as true as those things.
All scientific positions are provisional, subject to change.
I agree. But you seem to disagree with yourself sometimes.
**Theology that ignores the world is doomed to irrelevance. **
:eek:

But science is provisional, you said so DIRECTLY above. What we thought was “absolutely correct” about the world 1000 years ago has been replaced, in some cases many times, by new “absolutely correct” (as in you-have-to-be-uneducated-not-to-believe-this) truths about the world. Which will be different tomorrow.

Does your “job description” involve inventing novel theology in order to keep pace with the science theories du-jour?
You are lying when you say I “look to science for theological answers”; I do no such thing, and you know it.
But you look to science to see when the end times will be. See my previous post. The trail is there.
I look to theology to articulate the timeless truths of faith in the context of contemporary thought. To fail to to that is to fail to engage in the perennial hermeneutical task that is theology.
That sounds like a resume bullet for a modern theology department…

Articulating a truth in the modern venacular, or searching for a clearer meaning of Biblical truths based on better understandings of ancient cultures, is a bit different than changing the truth based on scientific theories.

You have many times “given the appearance” of preferring the science truth du-jour to the truth of revelation. If this is a mistaken impression - well, it sure seems like you are trying to cause it on purpose.
 
You have noticed that you are saying nothing.
I might say for example that, I am here - therefore I came from somewhere.
You say you have no evidence that I came from somewhere, its an assertion.
I say - but here I am, I must have arrived here from somewhere else.
You say theres no reason for you to think that.

Stop me if I am misrepresenting you again, I just want to make this simple so I understand what you think.
Yes, you are misrepresenting me - or misunderstanding me. Of course you came from somewhere. You don’t need evidence that you came from somewhere, it’s pretty obvious that you didn’t just spring into existence. I’m not denying that for one second. What I am saying is that you cannot know where you - or all life - came from. There’s plenty of evidence that we all evolved from a common ancester, and there’s limited evidence for how life got started on earth. But zero evidence for how the creation of the universe came about. Yet you boldly claim it was an intelligent force - by which I think you mean God in some form. But you have no possible way of knowing this - it’s just your opinion.
 
Heres one list of some of the elements needed;

Element Mass of element
in a 70-kg person
oxygen 43 kg
carbon 16 kg
hydrogen 7 kg
nitrogen 1.8 kg
calcium 1.0 kg
phosphorus 780 g
potassium 140 g
sulfur 140 g
sodium 100 g
chlorine 95 g
magnesium 19 g
iron 4.2 g
fluorine 2.6 g
zinc 2.3 g
silicon 1.0 g
rubidium 0.68 g
strontium 0.32 g
bromine 0.26 g
lead 0.12 g
copper 72 mg
aluminum 60 mg
cadmium 50 mg
cerium 40 mg
barium 22 mg
iodine 20 mg
tin 20 mg
titanium 20 mg
boron 18 mg
nickel 15 mg
selenium 15 mg
chromium 14 mg
manganese 12 mg
arsenic 7 mg
lithium 7 mg
cesium 6 mg
mercury 6 mg
germanium 5 mg
molybdenum 5 mg
cobalt 3 mg
antimony 2 mg
silver 2 mg
niobium 1.5 mg
zirconium 1 mg
lanthanium 0.8 mg
gallium 0.7 mg
tellurium 0.7 mg
yttrium 0.6 mg
bismuth 0.5 mg
thallium 0.5 mg
indium 0.4 mg
gold 0.2 mg
scandium 0.2 mg
tantalum 0.2 mg
vanadium 0.11 mg
thorium 0.1 mg
uranium 0.1 mg
samarium 50 µg
beryllium 36 µg
tungsten 20 µg

0% Fox News
I’m not a scientist, but I think you may be confusing what is found within a typical 70Kg person, with what is *needed *for a typical 70kg person. The human body is tainted with all sorts of toxins from our environment - for example, there are tonnes of lead in our atmosphere which we all absorb.

But even with your list above, you contradict your previous statement, that all the elements in the universe are required. You’ve listed only 59.
 
I’m not a scientist, but I think you may be confusing what is found within a typical 70Kg person, with what is *needed *for a typical 70kg person. The human body is tainted with all sorts of toxins from our environment - for example, there are tonnes of lead in our atmosphere which we all absorb. But even with your list above, you contradict your previous statement, that all the elements in the universe are required. You’ve listed only 59.
What’s more, Thing didn’t say all this was necessary to produce a human; Thing said it was necessary to produce “an intelligence.”
 
Articulating a truth in the modern venacular, or searching for a clearer meaning of Biblical truths based on better understandings of ancient cultures, is a bit different than changing the truth based on scientific theories.
Right – the former is what I do.
 
Then science should not enter into it.
Mark 13:26 says “Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.” That is either read symbolically (you literalists will gnash your teeth at that) or literally. If literally, science is relevant: are these stratus, cumulo-nimbus, or cirrus clouds?
 
Mark 13:26 says “Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.” That is either read symbolically (you literalists will gnash your teeth at that) or literally. If literally, science is relevant: are these stratus, cumulo-nimbus, or cirrus clouds?
The types of clouds are insignificant when we are talking about such things. However important they may be to science.

You are really grasping at straws here.
 
I’m not a scientist, but I think you may be confusing what is found within a typical 70Kg person, with what is *needed *for a typical 70kg person. The human body is tainted with all sorts of toxins from our environment - for example, there are tonnes of lead in our atmosphere which we all absorb.

But even with your list above, you contradict your previous statement, that all the elements in the universe are required. You’ve listed only 59.
I listed 59, or whatever, and I said these were *some *of the elements present. Please read carefully.🙂 There are at least 72 *trace *elements present and not as toxins, they are used. More trace elements and their functions are still being found. In all there are only 92 naturally occuring elements and all elements are required for plant and animal life processes and besides it is obvious that a human in an empty vacuum will not survive long enough to use his intelligence in any significant way without the basics for life.
All in all thats not bad.
 
Yes, you are misrepresenting me - or misunderstanding me. Of course you came from somewhere. You don’t need evidence that you came from somewhere, it’s pretty obvious that you didn’t just spring into existence. I’m not denying that for one second. What I am saying is that you cannot know where you - or all life - came from. There’s plenty of evidence that we all evolved from a common ancester, and there’s limited evidence for how life got started on earth. But zero evidence for how the creation of the universe came about. Yet you boldly claim it was an intelligent force - by which I think you mean God in some form. But you have no possible way of knowing this - it’s just your opinion.
Not so. We don’t have ‘no possible way of knowing this’, we have, in fact a very big universe, a planet full of life mastered by very intelligent creatures… thats us, by the way.

All of this came from somewhere, or nowhere, from your perspective. What comes from a place tells much about the place it came from. Thats how Columbus discovered America… coconuts in Portugal… pshaw…
 
What’s more, Thing didn’t say all this was necessary to produce a human; Thing said it was necessary to produce “an intelligence.”
Obviously, and this goes without saying, “an intelligence” is a human intelligence. A human intelligence, unfortunately, needs a body, and food etc. Unless you were thinking along the lines of a disembodied brain like Krang in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
 
Mark 13:26 says “Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.” That is either read symbolically (you literalists will gnash your teeth at that) or literally. If literally, science is relevant: are these stratus, cumulo-nimbus, or cirrus clouds?
All the above I suspect; the names describe clouds at different altitudes.😉
 
Not so. We don’t have ‘no possible way of knowing this’, we have, in fact a very big universe, a planet full of life mastered by very intelligent creatures… thats us, by the way.
We’re not doing such a good job of mastering H1N1.
 
The types of clouds are insignificant when we are talking about such things. However important they may be to science. You are really grasping at straws here.
ricmat, I’m afraid you are the one grasping at straws, desperately attempting to salvage something of science while at the same time attempting to wrestle with vague words about the terrestrial return of Jesus. Best of luck with that!
 
What is essential to remember here is that the doctrine and dogma of Christ’s Church is clear, and any assumption that mankind was subject to death, i.e. before Adam, is erroneous.

rtforum.org/lt/lt37.html concerning Genesis 1 and evolutionism:
“The Council of Orange adopted a canon which refers specifically to ‘bodily death which is the punishment of sin’; ….The Council of Trent reaffirmed these earlier teachings in different words (‘Adam … by his sin … drew upon himself the … death with which God had threatened him’);
……Trent’s Canon 2 declares: ‘If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin … transmitted to all mankind only death and the suffering of the body but not sin as well which is the death of the soul, anathema sit. For he contradicts the words of the Apostle: ‘Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men as all sinned in him’" (Rom. 5:12 Vulg; see Council of Orange II, Canon 2).

“…in his Creed of the People of God, Pope Paul VI spoke about ‘our first parents … (who) knew neither sin nor death.’

“Not only has the alleged transformation of species never been observed according to the standards of natural science, so that the “scientific” picture of evolution remains a pure historical conjecture that has never been substantiated, but even the reliability of the testimony regarding what has been observed is open to question. I am referring especially to the long history of downright dishonesty on the part of many “scientists” relating their findings amidst lies, distortions, unobjective selection of data, suppression of data that do not fit in with the desired results, and a pronounced overall bias in the way the investigations were first drawn up and afterwards reported. We are dealing here, on the historical level, not so much with a scientific process as with the unfolding of an emotional need, of a group obsession that has for well over a century captivated the minds of spiritually undisciplined persons.1”

“It seems that some kind of development from lower to higher forms of life is implicit in the text, but the Darwinian explanation, with its absence of finality, its spontaneous generation, and its random selection is excluded, both by Genesis and by biological science. To exclude divine Providence from the development means to exclude rational science itself.”
  1. Numerous exposes have been published of the dishonesty shown by many of those reporting evolutionary data and discoveries. See, for example, J.W.G. Johnson, The Crumbling Theory of Evolution (3rd printing, 1987: Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration Incorporated, P.O. Box 84595, Los Angeles, California 90073). See also Malcolm Bowden, Science vs Evolution (1st edition, 1991: Sovereign Publications, P.O. Box 88, Bromley, Kent BR2 9PF, England).
 
ricmat, I’m afraid you are the one grasping at straws, desperately attempting to salvage something of science while at the same time attempting to wrestle with vague words about the terrestrial return of Jesus. Best of luck with that!
You think that science will give us relevant insight into the end times. I do not.

It is clear to all who read these posts.
 
You think that science will give us relevant insight into the end times. I do not. It is clear to all who read these posts.
No, I don’t think science gives insight into what Christians refer to as “the end times.” But if Fundamentalist Christians want to interpret the “end times” in literal terms, they will at least have to address what science can predict about the future of the earth, the solar system and the universe.

StAnastasia
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top