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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Allyson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hugh_Farey said:
But digital? I’m not sure what you mean by digital. However, if people are digital, then I guess snowflakes are too.
Click to expand...
Sorry, missed this point.

Digital as expressed as series of the digits like A, T, C, G. Unlike human beings, snowflakes do not possess a digital code. Essentially, snowflakes are just water in specific atmospheric conditions. Granted, water is a unique combination of molecules but no digital code, therefore not intelligent under the present definition.
 
o_mlly said:
Too many? Just two – observable and repeatable , the standard scientific criteria.

But just two is too many, if and only if, I am correct. If only intelligent causes can explain intelligent effects then the task I assigned is impossible.
Click to expand...
You just demanded realistic as well. I am not sure you hold yourself to that standard, but it is what you asked of me. I have tried to keep to your original statement about organized information being dependent on an intelligent cause, precisely because intelligent is an undefined parameter. Organized information I can recognize, though you seem to want to deform that by making information dependent on intelligence. Intelligent effect is meaningless to me because I do not know what intelligent means in this context.

Your terse comments are too opaque.
 
Sbowflakes are based on a digital code of H, O and < where < represents a 60 degree angle. And I am not sure we need that last one.
 
Last edited:
Dovekin said:
You just demanded realistic as well.
Click to expand...
?? Uhhhh, yeah. If not then unicorns would fill the bill.
Dovekin said:
Your terse comments are too opaque.
Click to expand...
I prefer to label my comments “pithy” rather than “terse”.

I find some of your comments opaque …
Dovekin said:
Sbowflakes are based on a digital code of H, O and < where < represents a 60 degree angle.
Click to expand...
… and others, unfortunately, bloviated.

Please tighten up on your posts.
 
o_mlly said:
The OP is about genetic data and human beings . I limited the scope of inquiry to the same limits noting that the science today observes DNA/RNA in all living things.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you did, actually, but I think this new condition gets to the heart of what you really want. You’re asking me to find a demonstrable, and repeatable example of life originating from inorganic matter, and claiming that if I can’t, then life is somehow demonstrated not to have been so derived. As it happens I don’t have any such example, but then, I don’t think the lack of it demonstrates the correctness of your belief.

Actually I think it likely that inorganic matter, in similar circumstances to those when life-as-we-know it originated, has in the past and probably still does produce complex chemicals which could, in the absence of competition, develop into a whole new lineage of living things. Unfortunately, such is the ubiquity of life-as-we-know-it that these budding possibilities are devoured before they have a chance to show us their potential.
 
rossum said:
I find that a very strange argument for proponents of a religion to make.
Click to expand...
I think the point is that science and religion are only incompatible where competing truth claims are made based on the same data. Truth does not contradict truth; but interpretations can and do contradict. Evolution can be interpreted to support a materialist ideology. We can’t denigrate simple data, that’s nonsense, but we can critique competing metaphysical claims made based on that data.

I agree that it’s unfortunate that religious believers and people of faith throw those two words at irreligious and skeptical interlocutors, as if it is an accusation of mere bias, where religion and faith are actually understood as virtues. It’s better and more semantically accurate to compare interpretations and beliefs that everyone makes, whether they lead to an irreligious ideology and materialist credence, or religious dogma and faith.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
I don’t think you did, actually, but I think this new condition gets to the heart of what you really want. You’re asking me to find a demonstrable, and repeatable example of life originating from inorganic matter …
Click to expand...
Strawman. Once again, please use the “quote” facility rather than incorrectly attempting to paraphrase me. Show me my quote that “ask[s you] to find a demonstrable, and repeatable example of life originating from inorganic matter”.
 
Neithan said:
I agree that it’s unfortunate that religious believers and people of faith throw those two words at irreligious and skeptical interlocutors, as if it is an accusation of mere bias, where religion and faith are actually understood as virtues.
Click to expand...
This all day long.

By claiming that science or some scientific theory is just a religion, people saying this are admitting that religion itself is a bad and unreliable thing in their view. The person who makes such a claim undermines their own position.
 
False double-speak. My position is science is half-blind. It does not contain the whole truth about man.
 
gama232 said:
False double-speak. My position is science is half-blind. It does not contain the whole truth about man.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Ask any atheist who gets involved in discussion with Christians who say things like “science is just a religion.” As soon as they hear someone say that, they know that person has not thought through the the logical implication of those words.
 
gama232 said:
So you don’t want to answer the question? Soul or no?
Click to expand...
Why don’t you realize that the answer is yes? There was a very log discussion of souls already. I explained in my comment just quoted previously about what the Church teaches with regard to the creation of a soul and in other comments the fact that the Church speaks to spiritual reality. Why in the heck would you think I was not taking the existence of the soul as a given in such comments?
 
I’ll follow Cardinal Schoenborn and state that I agree with his position: science has become an ideology.

The logical implication of accepting ‘science’ is atheism. So-called ‘natural’ causes exclude God. The universe was not some wind-up toy God let loose to do whatever. I know enough science to understand the fine-tuning argument where many variables have to be finely balanced to allow the universe to be what it is. “Natural” means men are just the smartest animal and free to do whatever we want. Why was Jesus Christ born? To bring sinners to repentance.
 
The doctors? Are you going to bring out that lame medical argument about drugs? Science is all trial and error there. There is no ‘scientific method’ only racks of vials containing diseased tissue and various drug combinations that are injected to literally see what happens. I was at my doctor’s waiting room and read articles in a magazine about cancer treatment. They all boiled down to the following: “We tried this drug combination and it worked. We tried this other drug combination and it didn’t.” There is this fiction going around that living in the 21st Century has improved people, as if the date on the calendar pours wisdom or knowledge into anyone’s head. Trial and error is all they have. That’s why new drug trials take years before getting FDA approval. And why so many drugs fail because they kill the test animals.
 
Dovekin said:
Isn’t that the problem with your position? “Intelligent effects” is not realistic?
Click to expand...
Well, let me test that. Just pinched myself, it hurt and I posted my experience. So, yep, I’m a real intelligent effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top