Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

[rossum]

That would not be empirical as science experiment would require. It does count as evidence. God does not subject Himself to laying on a lab table so we can inspect Him.

So there is no empirical evidence for any of the miracles claimed by the Catholic Church when new saints are canonised.

 

[buffalo]

You cannot both claim that the supernatural is NOT testable by science and then also claim that science will “end up with God.” Do you not see the problem you are setting for yourself?

You misunderstand my point. See the problem we are setting ourselves up with? Let’s spend billions to continue to keep the divine foot out of the door. Is this our best use of research hours and research dollars?

 

[buffalo]

As I have said before, creationists make too much hay out of that meeting,

Stay tuned…More coming…

 

[Gorgias]

So there is no empirical evidence for any of the miracles claimed by the Catholic Church when new saints are canonised.

Huh?

These days, there’s quite a rigorous process for documenting the cures and the testimony of medical experts assenting that there’s no known reason for the cure. So… there’s evidence of a lack of an explanation other than a miracle.

 

[buffalo]

So there is no empirical evidence for any of the miracles claimed by the Catholic Church when new saints are canonised.

No, as I have repeatedly stated one time historical events cannot be empirically proven.

Miracles declared by the Church are not empirically proved. Evidence is presented, current science and medial professionals are consulted, witnesses too. From this a miracle is an event that has no natural explanation. (and you know how this is done, so what is your point?)

 

[Allyson]

Miracles declared by the Church are not empirically proved. Evidence is presented, current science and medial professionals are consulted, witnesses too. From this a miracle is an event that has no natural explanation. (and you know how this is done, so what is your point?)

Which explains why the frequency of miracles goes down as we develop a better understanding of the natural world. Do you see the problem there with how you want to explain the process?

You misunderstand my point. See the problem we are setting ourselves up with? Let’s spend billions to continue to keep the divine foot out of the door. Is this our best use of research hours and research dollars?

I would definitely NOT interpret events in this way. Of course, I am not sticking my fingers in my ears yelling “lalala.”

How do you rationalize excluding God from naturalistic testing, yet accuse science of keeping the “divine foot out of the door.” You cannot have it both ways.

Kinky…

 

[buffalo]

Which explains why the frequency of miracles goes down as we develop a better understanding of the natural world. Do you see the problem there with how you want to explain the process?

Do you have data showing the miracle count going down?

Science is the accumulation of knowledge. We gain knowledge even though it is all not empirically provable. Evolution being a one-time event and is not empirically testable. Nevertheless, science had real confidence in it. Why? Because it is philosophy. New and better information has come out as a result of genetics, the ability to see the machinery in the cell, the complex coding of DNA, protein folding, etc… shows us the old thinking of NS and RM is not correct.

 

[rossum]

So… there’s evidence of a lack of an explanation other than a miracle.

There is evidence for lack of a current scientific explanation. That is not evidence of a miracle.

At one point there was no scientific explanation for errors in the predicted orbit of Mercury. That was not a miracle, it was because Einstein had not yet proposed General Relativity. Possible scientific explanations of different phenomena change over time, and will continue to change in future.

The absence of a scientific explanation is only evidence for “We don’t know, yet.” It is not evidence of a miraculous intervention by Allah, Amaterasu or any other deity.

 

[rossum]

No, as I have repeatedly stated one time historical events cannot be empirically proven.

So, the existence of Francis of Assisi cannot be empirically proven. The convening of the First Vatican Council cannot be empirically proven. A great many things that happened yesterday, and before, cannot be empirically proven.

You do live in a very strange world, buffalo.

 

[buffalo]

We don’t know, yet.

I do agree evolution was accepted because we did not know yet about the evidence of design in the cell and DNA. Now we do.

 

[Allyson]

Do you have data showing the miracle count going down?

I might poke around and see if anyone has done this, but general historical knowledge can get you there.

Science is the accumulation of knowledge. We gain knowledge even though it is all not empirically provable. Evolution being a one-time event and is not empirically testable. Nevertheless, science had real confidence in it. Why? Because it is philosophy. New and better information has come out as a result of genetics, the ability to see the machinery in the cell, the complex coding of DNA, protein folding, etc… shows us the old thinking of NS and RM is not correct.

Watch the playlist, then substantiate these claims. Evolution is not a one time event.

 

[buffalo]

So, the existence of Francis of Assisi cannot be empirically proven. The convening of the First Vatican Council cannot be empirically proven. A great many things that happened yesterday, and before, cannot be empirically proven.

You do live in a very strange world, buffalo.

Correct. To be empirical science it has to be observable, repeatable and predictable.

Historical science is the investigation of one time historical events that are known to us through oral, written and archaeological means.

 

[buffalo]

Watch the playlist, then substantiate these claims. Evolution is not a one time event.

Is your claim now man has evolved several times?

 

[Allyson]

Is your claim now man has evolved several times?

Way to shift the goal post, or maybe you were not being precise in your language, I was talking about all evolution. Make your language less sloppy.

 

[buffalo]

Evolution is not a one time event.

This was your language. Do you mean evolution has occurred and stopped many times? Please be clear.

 

[Allyson]

This was your language. Do you mean evolution has occurred and stopped many times? Please be clear.

That phrase was a response to your statement here:

Evolution being a one-time event and is not empirically testable.

You made the claim that evolution was a non-testable one-time event. You DID NOT specify human evolution. Your words were unclear.

Calling evolution a one-time event implies that it happened once, and the process has stopped. This is not the case. Evolution is an ongoing process that has been continuous over the last 3.5 billion years. Modern humans and all other living plants and animals continue to evolve. In another sense you can say the evolution has happened several times, because there are multiple extinction events that are followed by an explosion of new forms.

So, to understand better, you should watch the playlist.

At this point, I am just going to start responding that you should watch the playlist, because as far as I can tell, you are keeping yourself in a state of willful ignorance.

 

[rossum]

Correct. To be empirical science it has to be observable, repeatable and predictable.

Historical science is the investigation of one time historical events that are known to us through oral, written and archaeological means.

So, it is not empirical science that Pope Francis was Pope last week, since last week is not repeatable.

As I said, a very strange attitude to take.

 

[buffalo]

Playlist

Cladistics have come up long ago in my discussions with various posters.

I said back then genetics will be a more accurate way to classify.

So called transitionals as evidence could also be moving to extinction. In other words. which direction is the arrow pointing? Morphology is not holding up as the best way. But, it sure looks convincing to the naked eye.

Originally it was a branching tree. Now it is a tangled mess. (HGT)

We are finding more and more evidence to support the arrow in the devolution direction.

 

[Allyson]

You can only go so far. Logic takes us to a first cause. We call this first cause God.

Deism is nice, but the Catholic claim goes much farther than that. God is more than a first cause in Catholic theology.

I agree that human reason has limits and can be imperfect. What you appear to fail to realize is that we can be less rationally certain of the truth of un-testable claims.

If you are claiming that science, which uses the scientific method of testing and repeat-ability, can be wrong because human reason has limits, then the same applies to claims about knowledge of the supernatural. At least natural claims are testable, so we can be more sure of those facts. However, you are claiming to be more sure of supernatural claims.

The claim that there were only ever two first parents is a testable wholly natural claim. The claim that they have souls specially created by God is essentially a supernatural claim, for which the only verification appears to be faith. Since the Catholic position is that faith and reason go together, it is not rational to insist on creationism.

 

[Allyson]

The playlist discusses all evidence including genetics - so I doubt the presenter says everything you think he says. So watch it. I was not a part of your previous discussion, and I am not going to dig for them.