L
larkin31
Guest
Behe has been debunked thoroughly and is yesterday’s news. He merits no further efforts here by those who know their science.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
buffalo
Guest
Oh really - tell me about what has been debunked.Behe has been debunked thoroughly and is yesterday’s news. He merits no further efforts here by those who know their science.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
ID.Oh really - tell me about what has been debunked.
E
edwest2
Guest
Not true. Unless a judge in a courtroom counts as a scientist.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Source?
L
larkin31
Guest
nah, he’s not worth it. You can find it all on your own.Oh really - tell me about what has been debunked.
Besides, I have a lot of shoveling to do here. Another blizzard in the NE!
L
larkin31
Guest
Only the theory that God made the first human gene from scratch assumes that the entire gene was made from scratch. This number is totally irrelevant to how scientists state that the human genome would have come from earlier genetic forms (and so on, and so on).My standards for absurdity differ from yours. For example,
The mathematically determinable odds for the assembly of the smallest human gene, consisting of 900 base-pairs, are 1 in 10 exp-542.
But evolution is a banned topic here, apparently. So I must simply say, you are wrong.
B
buffalo
Guest
Predictable…nah, he’s not worth it. You can find it all on your own.
Besides, I have a lot of shoveling to do here. Another blizzard in the NE!
L
larkin31
Guest
actually the forecasters were spot on with their predictions this time!Predictable…
G
grannymh
Guest
Just got back from an anthopology class which meant walking in minus 15 degrees wind chill.Larkin, I could not be part of such a group either. Fortunately my Catholic Church is not such a group, thus not forcing a false choice upon me.
I am trying to pick up your conversation with Larkin so please excuse my frozen gray matter. I am trying to recall your brand of theology. It looks to me like you are referring to the various different groups within the Catholic Church. Some groups are connected to Catholic theology and some groups are not.
Blessings,
:winter:
T
Tonitz
Guest
In the spirit of the OP, and apologizing that I have not thoroughly read all of the intervening posts, I would think that it might be wise to consider not whether religion and science are antagonistic with one another, or agree, but rather what is it that allows us to have and choose between these modes of thinking about the world and our experience and their subsidiary departments, especially in the realm of largely numbered and fractious religious viewpoints.
There can be no doubt that we have our grounds for explaining our place in life and the explanations we subscribe to. But if we find that our allegiances are combative with that of others who share this world, we might do well to examine the source and basis of our premises.
The chief amongst these is that our personal paradigm that explains existence has a 1/1 relationship with Reality. I capitalize that word to distinguish it from our ordinary perceptions of our immediate mental and other surroundings. Our paradigm is not in fact reflective of other than a minute part of the dynamics of existence and is barely inclusive enough to allow mostly a subsistence existence. It also contains, save in a very few cases, anything actually original with our own self.
Nevertheless, it is useful and productive to have as a premise, at least for those who will allow it, that we are, even our enemies and those who severely irritate us, made in the image and likeness of God, or the Unknown, or the invisible. In any case we can say that we are inextricably connected with the arisal and continuity of the word as we little understand it.
So if there is a solution to the religion/science concern, it is not perhaps int the pronouncements or paradigms of either one, but in exploring the very substance which allows them existence, namely the nature of Awareness itself. This has both been the realm of actual Spiritual work of the Greats, whether they called it so or not, and the tool of the scientist who found answers in the invisible and mysterious realms of intuition.
In either case, we have at hand the revelations of the invisible. The only real danger is the dogmatization of ideas gleaned from that realm by lesser souls than did the actual explorations within, and their misunderstandings of the perhaps necessary symbolisms of dynamics found there.
There can be no doubt that we have our grounds for explaining our place in life and the explanations we subscribe to. But if we find that our allegiances are combative with that of others who share this world, we might do well to examine the source and basis of our premises.
The chief amongst these is that our personal paradigm that explains existence has a 1/1 relationship with Reality. I capitalize that word to distinguish it from our ordinary perceptions of our immediate mental and other surroundings. Our paradigm is not in fact reflective of other than a minute part of the dynamics of existence and is barely inclusive enough to allow mostly a subsistence existence. It also contains, save in a very few cases, anything actually original with our own self.
Nevertheless, it is useful and productive to have as a premise, at least for those who will allow it, that we are, even our enemies and those who severely irritate us, made in the image and likeness of God, or the Unknown, or the invisible. In any case we can say that we are inextricably connected with the arisal and continuity of the word as we little understand it.
So if there is a solution to the religion/science concern, it is not perhaps int the pronouncements or paradigms of either one, but in exploring the very substance which allows them existence, namely the nature of Awareness itself. This has both been the realm of actual Spiritual work of the Greats, whether they called it so or not, and the tool of the scientist who found answers in the invisible and mysterious realms of intuition.
In either case, we have at hand the revelations of the invisible. The only real danger is the dogmatization of ideas gleaned from that realm by lesser souls than did the actual explorations within, and their misunderstandings of the perhaps necessary symbolisms of dynamics found there.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Roman Catholic.I am trying to pick up your conversation with Larkin so please excuse my frozen gray matter. I am trying to recall your brand of theology.
G
grannymh
Guest
Roman Catholic theology holds that Adam and Eve are the real, first, two, sole parents of humanity.Roman Catholic.
As for science, genetics is no longer the cut and dried version of 15 years ago or even of 5 years ago. Science is demonstrating the complexity of the human genome and as it is doing this, it will come closer to the *possibility *that two, sole human ancestors did exist.
One needs to remember that it is not necessary to have the zip code of the Garden of Eden in order to have a real Adam and Eve.
Blessings,
granny
Psalm 8
L
larkin31
Guest
evolutionary theory does not deny the possibility of two original homo sapiens. It simply claims that they evolved from early hominid species and continue to adapt and change over time. The CC does not deny that Adam and Eve may have evolved from earlier species. Nor does it deny the presence of early hominid species. Nor does it deny natural selection and genetic change over time.Roman Catholic theology holds that Adam and Eve are the real, first, two, sole parents of humanity.
As for science, genetics is no longer the cut and dried version of 15 years ago or even of 5 years ago. Science is demonstrating the complexity of the human genome and as it is doing this, it will come closer to the *possibility *that two, sole human ancestors did exist.
One needs to remember that it is not necessary to have the zip code of the Garden of Eden in order to have a real Adam and Eve.
Blessings,
granny
Psalm 8
B
buffalo
Guest
**DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?evolutionary theory does not deny the possibility of two original homo sapiens. It simply claims that they evolved from early hominid species and continue to adapt and change over time. The CC does not deny that Adam and Eve may have evolved from earlier species. Nor does it deny the presence of early hominid species. Nor does it deny natural selection and genetic change over time.
A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART I **
G
grannymh
Guest
In 1994-95, the reality of two progenitors of humanity were denied via a scientific paper and have been denied ever since…evolutionary theory does not deny the possibility of two original homo sapiens.
No comment due to ban.It simply claims that they evolved from early hominid species and continue to adapt and change over time.
When one reads about the creation of Adam in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition,* the first thing which is noticed is that human nature is described in positive terms; thus, there is no need to deny any speculations of science.The CC does not deny that Adam and Eve may have evolved from earlier species. Nor does it deny the presence of early hominid species. Nor does it deny natural selection and genetic change over time.
Furthermore, one should not read into the Catechism, the popular versions of Adam and Eve currently accepted by other Christian religions.
Blessings,
granny
Pslam 8
G
grannymh
Guest
The key Catholic teaching is that the first woman shares the same human nature as the first man. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, “Male and Female He Created Them” Equality and difference willed by God. Paragraphs 369-373.DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
**A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART I **
It needs to be remembered that biology addresses the anatomy which eventually decomposes. Catholicism addresses the complete human nature which includes both the material and the spiritual. Catholicism teaches that the human person has an eternal future. Divine Revelation trumps.
Blessings,
granny
Psalm 8
G
grannymh
Guest
I would offer that Awareness itself is made possible because human nature combines the material and spiritual worlds. Since human scientists are this unique nature, they have the innate ability to see beyond what properly belongs to natural science. We often think that biology is limited to the anatomy of a living organism. But why limit the creative talents of the biologist?In the spirit of the OP, and apologizing that I have not thoroughly read all of the intervening posts, I would think that it might be wise to consider not whether religion and science are antagonistic with one another, or agree, but rather what is it that allows us to have and choose between these modes of thinking about the world and our experience and their subsidiary departments, especially in the realm of largely numbered and fractious religious viewpoints.
There can be no doubt that we have our grounds for explaining our place in life and the explanations we subscribe to. But if we find that our allegiances are combative with that of others who share this world, we might do well to examine the source and basis of our premises.
The chief amongst these is that our personal paradigm that explains existence has a 1/1 relationship with Reality. I capitalize that word to distinguish it from our ordinary perceptions of our immediate mental and other surroundings. Our paradigm is not in fact reflective of other than a minute part of the dynamics of existence and is barely inclusive enough to allow mostly a subsistence existence. It also contains, save in a very few cases, anything actually original with our own self.
Nevertheless, it is useful and productive to have as a premise, at least for those who will allow it, that we are, even our enemies and those who severely irritate us, made in the image and likeness of God, or the Unknown, or the invisible. In any case we can say that we are inextricably connected with the arisal and continuity of the word as we little understand it.
So if there is a solution to the religion/science concern, it is not perhaps int the pronouncements or paradigms of either one, but in exploring the very substance which allows them existence, namely the nature of Awareness itself. This has both been the realm of actual Spiritual work of the Greats, whether they called it so or not, and the tool of the scientist who found answers in the invisible and mysterious realms of intuition.
In either case, we have at hand the revelations of the invisible. The only real danger is the dogmatization of ideas gleaned from that realm by lesser souls than did the actual explorations within, and their misunderstandings of the perhaps necessary symbolisms of dynamics found there.
Blessings,
granny
Psalm 8
B
buffalo
Guest
Indeed.Divine Revelation trumps.
Blessings,
granny
Psalm 8
T
Tonitz
Guest
Blessings on you as well, Grannymh. I hope you are not referring to my statement as limiting the creativity of the biologist, or any other scientist, as it is clear to me that such activities require creativity on many levels. I also attribute such creativity to the same Source as any other creativity, from finding a new way to clean your house or car to the precipitation of some ethereal work of visual or performance art. Creativity knows no bounds, and the laboratory or field studies are no exception, nor can they be.But why limit the creative talents of the biologist?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.