Religion and Science!

[John21652]

Science seeks out possibilities; then examines and tests them. Results from examination and testing become the evidence. Evidence is evaluated in order to determine if it supports the hypothesis. The evaluation serves as the basis for the conclusion.

When looking for conclusions about events in the pre-history era, the most important factor concerns the specific tools used for seeking possibilities which could eventually become conclusions.

The universal mistake which Catholics make in discussions about Adam and Eve is that they become fixated on the presented evidence as proof. They make the fatal assumption that tools dealing with millions of years going backwards are adequate because our technology is so advanced. That is a non sequitur.

It is usually not seen as a non sequitur because of a little thing called hubis.

Up until 1697, all Swans were white. Black swans were considered to be an impossibility, because every swan ever seen had been white. Voila, when, in 1697, one Dutch explorer, William Vlamingh sailed into what is now the the Swan River, in Western Australia and there they were - Black Swans.

Up until recently, according to Einstein, it was not possible for anything to travel faster than the speed of light. We now know that something can go faster than the speed of light. We also know the possibility was foreseen in 2002 when Australian scientists discovered that the speed of light has actually []slowed down over time](“http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/07/1028157961167.html”[B) and from that, faster than light speed travel may be possible possible.

A lot of new knowledge has come from the development of new tools. Who knows what we may doscover in the future. Yellow Swans, maybe, that travel faster than the speed of light.

 

[tonyrey]

Matt. 24: 29: “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will give no light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in Heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call…34** Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”**

We’re still waiting.
No interpretation of “generation” in this passage makes sense except “people living when these words were spoken,” which is the meaning of the same Greek word in all other occurrences in the NT.

John 3:13: “No man has ascended to Heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven.”

Compare 2 Kings 2:11, which says Elijah was taken up to Heaven by a whirlwind, and Gen. 5:24, with Heb. 11:5, which says Enoch was also taken to Heaven.

John 8:44, Jesus says the Devil is a liar, and there is no truth in him. Yet in Mat. 8:29, Mark 3:11, Luke 4:41, demons Jesus casts out all proclaim that he is the Son of God. Is this not the truth?

There are many more examples of Jesus contradicting himself, and of the Cospels contradicting each other.

Royce Gruenler points out that reading this as an ingressive aorist would have us translate it “from the perspective of initiated action” and therefore render it: “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things begin to come to pass” (William Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, pg 193).
The same sort of language is seen when Jesus says, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matthew 16:28).
What shall we say to these things? I believe that the answer to BOTH passages is seen in the fact that a partial and typological fulfillment took place in that day.
In the case of the Matthew 16:28 passage, we are given the partial fulfillment in the following verses that describe the Transfiguration of Jesus. In the case of Matthew 24, it is true that the destruction of Jerusalem served as a type and a shadow of the future destruction and judgment that face all men.
The early church fathers seem to have understood this point, for their treatment of the events of Matthew 24 was to look for a future culminative fulfillment.
Such an interpretation should not surprise us. We see this take place regularly in Biblical prophecy.
Prophecy
Initial Fulfillment
Ultimate Fulfillment
And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. (Genesis 12:3).
Points to Israel as a blessing
Jesus is the ultimate blessing
I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near; A star shall come forth from Jacob, And a scepter shall rise from Israel, And shall crush through the forehead of Moab, And tear down all the sons of Sheth. 18 And Edom shall be a possession, Seir, its enemies, also shall be a possession, While Israel performs valiantly. 19 One from Jacob shall have dominion, And shall destroy the remnant from the city. (Numbers 24:17-19).
References to Edom and Moab indicate it is fulfilled initially in David
Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment whose coming is announced by a Star
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14).
Context of the passage points to a child in that day
Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of the virgin born child.

angelfire.com/nt/theology/mt24-34.html

 

[grannymh]

It is usually not seen as a non sequitur because of a little thing called hubis.

Then it is time for some Catholics to get over the “little things”.

A lot of new knowledge has come from the development of new tools. Who knows what we may doscover in the future. Yellow Swans, maybe, that travel faster than the speed of light.

This misses the point of the non sequitur.

Catholics need to use common sense and examine the tools which are used to seek the possibilities in the past. Questions have to be asked such as what are the assumption tools and estimate tools being used? What do the samples represent? Were the mathematic and computer tools appropriate? What areas of the globe are being investigated for possibilities? Is anthropomorphism influencing the conclusion?

When dealing in the scientific domain, “tools” has a broader meaning that an electric drill. If there are any Catholics interested in dealing with the Adam and Eve issue from a scientific viewpoint, then the first thing that has to be done is to shift the view from the “evidence as proof” to the methods and materials (tools in a simpler language).

One other point. The white and black swans’ story cannot exactly be applied to the search for human origin. Because current explorers cannot physically be in the past to explore the entire globe looking for yellow swans.

Or one might say that human nature already exists.

I am very interested in your response.

 

[rossum]

Do you accept the Universal Probabality Bound? Why or why not?

The UPB makes a useful discussion point, though it is not as significant as it is sometimes made out to be. Events with a smaller probability happen all the time: shuffle two packs of cards for instance. Your chances of getting that particular ordering are less than the UPB.

I have a far bigger problem with the calculations that some ID types use to get a low probability result to exceed the UPB. Since the calculations are based on incorrect models, the numbers that result from the calculations are themselves useless for showing anything about the real world.

rossum

 

[cornbread_r2]

I thought you all might be interested in this recent TED presentation.

The presenter demonstrates how ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life.html"]some purely chemical processes blur the line between life and non-life.

 

[cornbread_r2]

I thought you all might be interested in this recent TED talk.

The presenter demonstrates how some purely chemical processes seem to blur the line between life and non-life.

 

[inocente]

Do you actually think that LeMaitre, a Catholic priest, did not believe the universe was created?

Yes, he said it could be either, those are his words. Lemaître was a good scientist, and a good scientist has an open mind. And from his writing he had a mature and deep understanding of Catholicism, with little time for the superficial:

*The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less — some more than others — on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors in historic and scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if the errors related to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them . . . The idea that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects, is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all. - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847
*

 

[inocente]

Or as the great astrophysicist Fred Hoyle put it long ago:

“The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing-747.”

You didn’t like Penrose’s ideas earlier on because he’s an atheist, but now you quote Hoyle who converted from atheism to of all things panspermia (life on earth came from outer space ) and who didn’t accept Lemaître’s big bang theory (was it Hoyle who invented the name big bang in an attempt at mockery?).

Consistency is your middle name bro.

 

[buffalo]

Sorry, I don’t know what that is. Can you summarize, please? Thanks.

This amazes me. If you were once an ID proponent you must know it, if not perhaps you need to reevaluate your current position.

 

[inocente]

I thought you all might be interested in this recent TED talk.

The presenter demonstrates how some purely chemical processes seem to blur the line between life and non-life.

Thanks, I’ll listen to that tomorrow.

 

[buffalo]

SGW
**
As Astronomer royal Martin Rees put it, if you have a shop with thousands of suits, all of varying sizes, anda man came in and found a suit that was a perfect fit, it wouldn’t be because the suit was specially tailored to fit his measurements. It would be because there were so many sizes that the chances were good that one would fit. The universe came first; we evolved in it because we could. Not the reverse.**

You’ve just made our case for a designer God.

The man who goes into a shop finds a suit that is a perfect fit. That is because all the suits in that shop were intelligently designed to fit anyone who came into the shop. The same with the arrival of life on our planet. The suit fit us because from the time of the Big Bang the universe was so designed that man would find a suit that would fit him; or conversely, the suit that would fit him found man.

**I don’t know why this silly analogy keeps popping up. The analogy is false because the 747 is not an organic process, therefore cannot evolve; therefore it is not comparable to the evolutionary process. **

Neither was the matter organic that became life until after it became life. That matter could not evolve into life becasue there is no principle in the theory of evolution that allows life to evolve from non-life. Evolvution treats only of life evolving from **other **life.

Not so. The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion.

You are asserting that life appeared without being designed. Prove it!!!

Another problem with SG’s post.

When we look at targeted searches the odds of finding the target and the time it takes are important but he diminished them. In his example he uses only 1000 suits.

Now imagine this same guy who comes into the store and there are 10 to the 100th suits and he has to find the one that fits. The odds that he will find it the first time are astronomical. Next, is the time it will take to find that one that will fit.

 

[buffalo]

Charlemagne II, may I suggest someone study up on the existence of Fibonacci Numbers in nature (or in music, in architecture, or in what we humans call ‘beauty’ ) and then attempt to prove that there was no designer. Fibonacci numbers, and the Golden Ratio are mind bogglingly amazing in how they show up even in sun flowers, as an example.
Anyone interested can

Quite right.

 

[buffalo]

The UPB makes a useful discussion point, though it is not as significant as it is sometimes made out to be. Events with a smaller probability happen all the time: shuffle two packs of cards for instance. Your chances of getting that particular ordering are less than the UPB.

I have a far bigger problem with the calculations that some ID types use to get a low probability result to exceed the UPB. Since the calculations are based on incorrect models, the numbers that result from the calculations are themselves useless for showing anything about the real world.

rossum

\

By design the 2 pack shuffle limits the odds.

Do you agree with the calculations with regard to protein folding?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Yes, he said it could be either, those are his words. Lemaître was a good scientist, and a good scientist has an open mind. And from his writing he had a mature and deep understanding of Catholicism, with little time for the superficial:

No, he didn’t say those words. And you have failed to cite them, more proof that you are talking through a conical hat. Why do you never supply direct quotes, as I do?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

You didn’t like Penrose’s ideas earlier on because he’s an atheist, but now you quote Hoyle who converted from atheism to of all things panspermia (life on earth came from outer space ) and who didn’t accept Lemaître’s big bang theory (was it Hoyle who invented the name big bang in an attempt at mockery?).

I didn’t say I didn’t like Penrose’s ideas because he is an atheist. I said he is looking for time before the Big Bang because that is the only escape hatch in astronomy to justify atheism.

The point is, Penrose has no proof for such time before the Big Bang. We are back to the “could-be” game.

You don’t convert from atheism to panspermia. That’s a trifle ridiculous for you to allege. Certainly Hoyle had more brains than to suppose that panspermia was an alternative to atheism. Where do you find this nonsense? I notice you never supply your sources. Do you just make all this up as you go along?

Lots of people didn’t accept the Big Bang, including Einstein. Are you implying that if Hoyle didn’t like the Big Bang, he and Einstein must have been equally stupid?

Neither of them liked it not because they were stupid, but because they had a previous lifelong assumption of a static universe, which LeMaitre’s work completely demolished, and which insight later observations corroborated.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

buffalo

**Now imagine this same guy who comes into the store and there are 10 to the 100th suits and he has to find the one that fits. The odds that he will find it the first time are astronomical. Next, is the time it will take to find that one that will fit. **



Moreover, this assumes that the fellow is intelligently looking for a suit that fits. That is, he is intelligently designing his search, which, if he is of medium size, would include eliminating the large suits and the small suits during his search. This might reduce the length of time required to search, but at the same time it increases the requirement for an intelligent search in order to reduce the time. Most of all, the analogy suggests that a suit has already been intelligently designed to fit the customer.

No matter how you cut it, this analogy assumes intelligent design.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

This also from Fred Hoyle:

"…The universe is sitting on a knife-edge as to whether it is going to expand for ever or eventually re-collapse. This is to do with how much total mass-energy there is in the universe. If there is more than a certain critical value, then gravity will pull the universe back and it will re-collapse. If there is less than that critical value, then gravity won’t be sufficient to pull the universe back, and it will expand fore ever.
“Right back at the beginning, the universe needed to be very close to that knife-edge in order for stars, galaxies and planets to form. The mass-energy needed to be what it was to within 1 part in 10/60 (that’s ten with sixty noughts after it). That kind of accuracy would be the same as firing a gun from one end of the universe to the other (some ten billion light years away) and hitting a coin you were aiming at. The question is: Was that a lucky shot or are you a brilliant marksman? Likewise, is the fine balance of the universe a lucky happenstance or is there a brilliant designer behind it? I believe that there’s a brilliant designer behind it.”

 

[tonyrey]

I thought you all might be interested in this recent TED talk.

The presenter demonstrates how some purely chemical processes seem to blur the line between life and non-life.

I haven’t succeeded in accessing the talk. In the meantime can you explain how it is demonstrated that purely chemical processes acquire the urge to survive and the flexibility to do so in different environments?

 

[rossum]

By design the 2 pack shuffle limits the odds.

There are 104! possible arrangements of the cards in a double pack. That is 1.03e166 possible arrangements. Taking that as a log probability, gives -166. The Dembski/Borel UPB is -150. The two pack shuffle exceeds that UPB by 16. Since those are base ten logarithms, that corresponds to sixteen orders of magnitude over the UPB.

Do you agree with the calculations with regard to protein folding?

Reference please. I need to see if the calculations include the effects of natural selection. A calculation that omits natural selection is not useful in the study of evolution, since evolution does include natural selection.

rossum

 

[SGWessells]

SGW

John 8:44, Jesus says the Devil is a liar, and there is no truth in him. Yet in Mat. 8:29, Mark 3:11, Luke 4:41, demons Jesus casts out all proclaim that he is the Son of God. Is this not the truth?

In all three passages the demons are addressing Jesus, not the men whom they could corrupt with their lies.

What Jesus was talking about in the passage from John is how demons talk to men. They tell nothing but lies to men because it is their mission to deceive men and fill hell with their lost and murdered souls.

There must be some truth in the demons’ recognition that they are in hell. After all, isn’t that where they want to be?

Mark 3:9 reads: “And he [Jesus] told his disciples to have a boat ready for him because of the crowd, lest they crush him, 10 for he had healed many, so that all who had diseases pressed around him to touch him. 11 And whenever unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.” 12 And he strictly ordered him not to make him known.” ESV, emphasis mine.

The context of Luke is similar. Crowds wanting to be healed pressed around Jesus, and could not help hearing what the demons said. Besides, someone who wrote the gospels heard them, because there the verses are.
Notice Jesus did not rebuke the demons for lying, but for revealing the secret before he was ready. So the contradiction stands.
Matthew reports that the herdsmen among the Gadarenes reported everything that happened, so perhaps they heard the demonic statement also.

As for demons wanting to be in Hell, who knows? James’ statement that they believe and shudder makes it doubtful. At any rate, the Christian consensus is that the fallen angels’ decision to rebel is irrevocable, so whether they want to be in Hell or not is irrelevant. Personally, I don’t think anybody that’s in Hell wants to be there; if they did, it wouldn’t be much of a punishment, would it?

It would be an interesting exercise to look up everything the devil says in scripture and see how many of them are lies and how many are true. I’ll bet it would surprise you.