Religion and Science!

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
inocente

O, hang on, I can see how this might happen: if you just read a few lines out of context + ignore what’s written and substitute what you want to hear.

Lamarck and Darwin both believed in evolution. But their theories contradicted each other. Do you think the Darwinians considered themselves to be in the same fold with the Lamarckians, and vice versa?

Well, apparently what you want to hear is that thousands of Protestant denominations, all teaching contrary doctrines in the name of Christ, constitute the one fold that Jesus preached, and after him Paul preached too. :D.

This from Paul:

“For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I give thanks (to God) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say you were baptized in my name.” 1 Corinthians. 1:11-15

“May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to think in harmony with one another, in keeping with Christ Jesus, that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Romans 15:5-6

“I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.” 1 Corinthians 1:10

“I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, a striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one
baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” Ephesians 4:1-5

“Only conduct yourselves in a way worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that, whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear news of you, that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind struggling together for the faith of the gospel.” Philippians 1:27

Is Paul only speaking to Gentiles, or is he speaking to Christian communities and pressing the need for “one shepherd and one fold” that Jesus pressed?
 
buffalo said:
Design and purpose are very important here. Randomness is hard to empirically study because of its unpredictability.
Click to expand...
Just want to make sure that my post 214 is clear enough. I should probably add that I did not mention design per se.
From post 214

Why?

All I said was “The physical universe is intelligible.” (post 212)

*I learned this bit of information from an atheist physicist so I really doubt he was thinking about many gods or any god. *
Click to expand...
Now – is anyone interested in an intelligible physical universe? If not, my feelings will not be hurt. I simply like to use one-liners to test the water, so to speak. My favorite line is – The human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
inocente
**
That’s not necessarily true. Big bang says there was a point when the physical clock was set to zero. The standard model is that the universe was an infinitely small singularity at that time, but infinities are anathema in math. There are many ideas about how to remove this abomination from the theory, but all of them appear to mean there must have been some physical preexistence which is probably forever obscured by big bang resetting the clock.**

Well, that’s just your opinion, not necessarily true. We have no warrant to believe that there was any physical existence before the Big Bang, since there was no time before the Big Bang in which anything physical could exist. 😉
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Well, that’s just your opinion, not necessarily true. We have no warrant to believe that there was any physical existence before the Big Bang, since there was no time before the Big Bang in which anything physical could exist. 😉
Click to expand...
Not my opinion but that of cosmologists. I obviously missed the Vatican’s announcement that “there was no time before the Big Bang” is no longer provisional science and is now religious dogma. 😃
 
inocente said:
Not my opinion but that of cosmologists. I obviously missed the Vatican’s announcement that “there was no time before the Big Bang” is no longer provisional science and is now religious dogma. 😃
Click to expand...
The Church does not make dogmatic statements on the theories or conclusions of science.
 
inocente said:
John Cleese is really scathing about the sin of oversimplification “… it’s closely linked to this gene here, which gives you such a weak sense of self that you hang on to anything which makes you feel more secure emotionally, whether it’s fundamentalist religion or a reductionist view of the universe; which is right over this gene here, which makes you want to punch people in the head when they take the scientific process and subject it to their pathological literal-mindedness”
Click to expand...
😃

4.bp.blogspot.com/_h-pUKym_Obw/S-QakcmYneI/AAAAAAAAAdg/ehzZkRZAnOI/s1600/circleofpowerhijr4.jpg
 
StAnastasia said:
The Church does not make dogmatic statements on the theories or conclusions of science.
Click to expand...
In addition, the Catholic Church does not change defined dogma, such as two founders of humanity, to exclusively reflect the material world
 
inocente

Not my opinion but that of cosmologists. I obviously missed the Vatican’s announcement that “there was no time before the Big Bang” is no longer provisional science and is now religious dogma.

According to cosmologists, time began with the Big Bang. That is not a Vatican pronouncement, though I’m sure the Vatican would be pleased to agree. 😃
 
Charlemagne_II said:
inocente…ccording to cosmologists, time began with the Big Bang. That is not a Vatican pronouncement, though I’m sure the Vatican would be pleased to agree. 😃
Click to expand...
How do you know that time is the only measure of existence?
 
StAnastasia

**How do you know that time is the only measure of existence? **

If you know of an existing physical thing that exists outside of time, let us know. 😃
 
grannymh said:
In addition, the Catholic Church does not change defined dogma, such as two founders of humanity, to exclusively reflect the material world
Click to expand...
Correct. The main thing now is to falsify genetic evidence that contradicts the doctrine of Adam and Eve, and to fabricate scientific evidence to support the theory.
 
StAnastasia said:
Correct. The main thing now is to falsify genetic evidence that contradicts the doctrine of Adam and Eve, and to fabricate scientific evidence to support the theory.
Click to expand...
Oh, my goodness! No way is there a need to falsify genetic evidence and to fabricate scientific evidence. 😦

All you need to do is to present the “evidence” from a research paper including the citation and then you can specifically point out the actual evidence that specifically contradicts the doctrine of two sole parents of humanity. Please note that declaring something about 10,000 breeding pairs is a declaration or conclusion and not the evidence itself. You mentioned evidence twice in your post so we will stick with the evidence. Nothing but the facts.

Note: Scientists are very careful about having conclusions correlate with the evidence. It is the interpreters who, at times, magnify the evidence.
 
grannymh said:
Scientists are very careful about having conclusions correlate with the evidence. It is the interpreters who, at times, magnify the evidence.
Click to expand...
Grannym, it is you, the interpreter of dogma, who must falsify the evidence to support your theory. Rossum and I have been over this many times with you in the past couple of years, and yet you conveniently shove the evidence under the carpet every time. Please do present your interpretation before the American Society of Genetics.
 
StAnastasia

**I never implied there was an existing physical thing that exists outside of time. **

Then apparently we agree, there is no existing physical being outside of time? 😉

Where is this discussion going from your point of view? Nowhere, from mine.
 
StAnastasia said:
Grannym, it is you, the interpreter of dogma, who must falsify the evidence to support your theory. Rossum and I have been over this many times with you in the past couple of years, and yet you conveniently shove the evidence under the carpet every time. Please do present your interpretation before the American Society of Genetics.
Click to expand...
All you need to do is to present the “evidence” from a research paper including the citation and then you can specifically point out the actual evidence that specifically contradicts the doctrine of two sole parents of humanity. Please note that declaring something about 10,000 breeding pairs is a declaration or conclusion and not the evidence itself. You mentioned evidence twice in your post 230, so we will stick with the evidence. Nothing but the facts.

Of course, I would expect a citation that I have access to. However, with the thousands of similar research projects, I am sure a similar research project can be cited from a major journal. There is an interesting one in Nature which I have not had time to read. However, if you cite it and relate its evidence, I will make time.

As for presenting a paper before the American Society of Genetics, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why I would want to do that. Catholicism is my interest and posting here suits me.
 
StAnastasia

**Please do present your interpretation before the American Society of Genetics. **

Why is it that every thread I encounter you on, you oppose the the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church while proclaiming yourself to be a Catholic? You constantly disagree with Catholics and agree with those who are not Catholic on just about every thread.

Exactly what is your modus operandi? To confuse and confound fellow Catholics, while encouraging the spread of anti-Catholic teachings?

Please explain. :confused:
 
Charlemagne_II said:
StAnastasia, Why is it that every thread I encounter you on, you oppose the the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church while proclaiming yourself to be a Catholic? You constantly disagree with Catholics and agree with those who are not Catholic on just about every thread.
Click to expand...
That’s not true. Maybe you just seek out the controversial threads. I am fully supportive of Catholic doctrine.
Exactly what is your modus operandi?
Click to expand...
Education. In my professional position I serve as a mediator between atheist scientists who have little but contempt for religion, and religious fundamentalists who are woefully uneducated about science.
To confuse and confound fellow Catholics, while encouraging the spread of anti-Catholic teachings?
Click to expand...
Not at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top